Opinion ID: 3160826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Abuse of CBPO Position

Text: Disla first asserts the district court erred in relying on his abuse of his CBPO position because this conduct was already “fully accounted for and punished” by the sentencing court. But, whether the sentencing court considered this conduct is inapposite. District courts have discretion to deny a § 3582(c)(2) motion based on the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which include “the nature and circumstances of the offense.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337–38 (11th Cir. 2013). Disla’s abuse of his position as a CBPO during the commission of his crime clearly relates to the nature and circumstances of his offense. As such, the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering this conduct.