United States v. David Fernandez

Fifth Circuit

United States v. David Fernandez

653 F. App'x 304

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 24, 2016

Docket15-10847

StatusUnpublished

This text of 653 F. App'x 304 (United States v. David Fernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. David Fernandez, 653 F. App'x 304 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

David Fernandez, federal prisoner # 32964-177, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a reduction of his 188-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute less than 50 grams of cocaine base. That sentence is the result of a previous reduction from the original 235-month sentence as the result of a retroae- *305 tive amendment that lowered the Guideline for crack offense. Fernandez now seeks a modification of his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered most offense levels for any drug offenses by two points.

Fernandez argues that the district court erred in denying his most recent § 3582(c)(2) motion because it did not adequately explain its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, gave excessive weight to his criminal history and relevant conduct, and did not adequately consider the other § 3553(a) factors or his mitigating arguments. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009).

The record shows that the district court gave due consideration to the § 3582(c) motion as a whole, considered all of the § 3553(a) factors, and contemplated Fernandez’s mitigating arguments, including his positive post-sentence rehabilitation efforts and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among similarly situated defendants; thus, there is no abuse of discretion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672-73 & n.11; United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (5th Cir. 1995).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

PER CURIAM: *

David Fernandez, federal prisoner # 32964-177, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a reduction of his 188-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute less than 50 grams of cocaine base. That sentence is the result of a previous reduction from the original 235-month sentence as the result of a retroae- *305 tive amendment that lowered the Guideline for crack offense. Fernandez now seeks a modification of his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered most offense levels for any drug offenses by two points.

Fernandez argues that the district court erred in denying his most recent § 3582(c)(2) motion because it did not adequately explain its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, gave excessive weight to his criminal history and relevant conduct, and did not adequately consider the other § 3553(a) factors or his mitigating arguments. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009).

The record shows that the district court gave due consideration to the § 3582(c) motion as a whole, considered all of the § 3553(a) factors, and contemplated Fernandez’s mitigating arguments, including his positive post-sentence rehabilitation efforts and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among similarly situated defendants; thus, there is no abuse of discretion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672-73 & n.11; United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (5th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, the order of the district court is 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 F. App'x 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-david-fernandez-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack