United States v. Castorena

169 F. App'x 181
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided February 22, 2006·No. 04-10996·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Angel Castoreña, federal prisoner # 23875-077, appeals the denial of his mo *182 tion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that he is entitled to a reduced sentence under Amendment 505 to the Sentencing Guidelines and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738,160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

A district court exercises sound discretion in determining whether to grant a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(e)(2) motion, and we review its decision for abuse of discretion only. United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir.1997). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Castorena’s motion. This court’s previous opinion denying relief under § 3582(c)(2) with respect to Douglas’s Amendment 505 claim is the law of the case. See United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 752 (5th Cir.1998). Castorena’s Blakely and Booker claims are not cognizable in the context of a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion because neither case is based on a retroactive amendment to the Guidelines. See United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Castorena, 169 F. App'x 181 (5th Cir. 2006).

169 F. App'x 181 (United States v. Castorena) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Becerra
155 F.3d 740 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Patricia Ann Shaw
30 F.3d 26 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)