Court Opinion

ID: 18658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:17:27+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:46.260271
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                           No. 98-41402
                         Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

                              versus

JOSE ONELIO RIOS,

                                        Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. C-97-CR-250-7
_________________________________________________________________

                         September 2, 1999

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Jose Onelio Rios, federal prisoner No. 78248-079, appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion to modify his sentence

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).   Rios contends that he is entitled

to a sentence reduction because his sentence was based on a

guideline range that has subsequently been lowered.

     After careful review of the record and the briefs, we find no

indication that Rios’s sentence was based on a guideline sentencing

range that has since been lowered. Furthermore, this case does not

involve circumstances that would otherwise trigger the district

     *
      Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
court’s discretionary authority to modify a sentence under 18

U.S.C. §   3582(c).   Accordingly,   Rios’s   §   3582(c)   motion   for

reduction of his sentence was “an unauthorized motion which the

district court was without jurisdiction to entertain.”          United

States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994).            For this

reason, the judgment of the district court is

                                                     A F F I R M E D.