USA v. Rigoberto Mata, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11186 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: ECP , Judge: CH. Mandate pull date is 02/02/2017 [16-11186]
Date Filed: 01/12/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
January 12, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RIGOBERTO MATA, JR.,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:08-CR-267-15
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Rigoberto Mata, Jr., who is serving a 235-month prison sentence after a
jury convicted him of conspiring to conduct financial transactions involving
unlawful activity, appeals the district court’s decision to deny his motion for a
sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Through that motion, he
requested that the court reduce his prison term based on Amendment 782 to
the Sentencing Guidelines, which had the effect of retroactively lowering most
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 01/12/2017
drug-related base offense levels by two levels. Mata has not shown that the
district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v.
Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). The court correctly recognized
that Mata was eligible for a reduction and that his original sentence was at the
top of his new guidelines range; however, it denied the motion as a matter of
discretion, citing Mata’s criminal history, the nature of the offense, and Mata’s
relevant conduct, all of which were appropriate factors to consider. See Dillon
v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).
Though Mata urges that the district court should have reexamined the
finding it made at the original sentencing hearing regarding the quantity of
drugs that corresponded to the amount of money Mata had laundered for a
drug organization, § 3582(c)(2) “is not the appropriate vehicle for raising issues
related to the original sentencing.” See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667,
674 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
Mata also argues that the district court improperly relied on his criminal
history because, he maintains, he had no prior criminal history, but the
presentence report belies this assertion. Finally, he urges that he was not a
trusted member of the drug organization, but the district court found otherwise
at the original sentencing hearing, noting that Mata had “significant
culpability” and played an “integral” role in the organization.
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?