Court Opinion

ID: 35455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 19:28:32+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:27.745549
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                                                                       F I L E D
                                                                                         May 25, 2004
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                   Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                                  Clerk
                                  _________________________

                                        No. 03 - 20682
                                    SUMMARY CALENDAR
                                  _________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff - Appellee,

   v.

ISRAEL ESPERICUETA,

                       Defendant - Appellant.

______________________________________________________________________________

                 On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                              Southern District of Texas
                                  (H-90-CR-428-12)
______________________________________________________________________________

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:1

        In this appeal we review the district court’s denial of Defendant - Appellant, Israel

Espericueta’s, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion and his motion for a completed ruling.

        Espericueta was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine,

conspiracy to launder money, and aiding and abetting money laundering. He now argues that his

        1
        Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.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.

                                                 -1-
sentence should be reduced by the retroactive application of two recent amendments to the

Sentencing Guidelines: (1) a November 1, 1998 clarifying amendment to U.S.S.G. §5K2.0 and its

commentary, labeled as amendment 585 in Appendix C of the Guidelines, and (2) a November 1,

2002 amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 and the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, labeled as

Amendment 640 in Appendix C of the Guidelines.

        Neither Amendment 585, nor Amendment 640 are listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) as

amendments to be applied retroactively, thus Espericueta is not entitled to collateral relief. See

U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(c); United States v. Davidson, 283 F.3d 681, 684 (5th Cir. 2002); United States

v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 217 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Espericueta a reduction of his sentence. See United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28-29

(5th Cir. 1994).

        Further, we affirm the district court’s denial of Espericueta’s motion for completed ruling

as we assume the district court conducted the proper review absent evidence to the contrary.

Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993).

        For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision.

                                                 -2-