USA v. Jose Sanchez


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jose Sanchez. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link

Download PDF
Case: 15-12944 Date Filed: 03/01/2016 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-12944 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cr-60042-JIC-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (March 1, 2016) Before HULL, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. Case: 15-12944 Date Filed: 03/01/2016 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Jose Sanchez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence, under § 3582(c)(2). Sanchez (a former TSA agent) was eligible for a potential reduction. But the district court retained the discretion to refuse to reduce the sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Sanchez relief: a decision based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors -- the court conducted the required two-step analysis and provided a specific basis for its decision. For background, see United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2009). The district court did not err in allowing the government to oppose Sanchez’s motion, despite the government’s promise in his plea agreement that it would recommend -- as it did at his 2009 sentencing -- a sentence at the low end of his guideline range: the plea agreement did not address the parties’ obligation in the event of a future § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief. AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?