USA v. Arnulfo Davila


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10720 Affirmed ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: JLW , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 06/27/2017 [16-10720]

Download PDF
Case: 16-10720 Document: 00514021994 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-10720 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 6, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ARNULFO DAVILA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-194-1 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Arnulfo Davila, federal prisoner # 32490-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. He contends that the district court erred in failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before denying his motion and in failing to consider the applicable guidelines range. The district court sentenced Davila to 300 months of imprisonment based on his binding agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 16-10720 Document: 00514021994 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2017 No. 16-10720 11(c)(1)(C). Davila’s plea agreement did not call for him to be sentenced within a particular guidelines range, nor did it indicate that the basis for the specified term was a guidelines range applicable to his offense. See Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 534-40 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807, 809-12 (5th Cir. 2016). Additionally, the plea agreement did not explicitly employ a particular guidelines range to establish the term of imprisonment. See Benitez, 822 F.3d at 811. Thus, Davila was not eligible for a reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2); see Benitez, 822 F.3d at 811-12. The district court’s denial of a sentence reduction is, therefore, AFFIRMED. See Benitez, 822 F.3d at 809-12; Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). 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?