USA v. Roque Garcia
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-20096 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ, Judge: JLW, Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 11/04/2016 [16-20096]
Date Filed: 10/14/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
October 14, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ROQUE URDIALES GARCIA, also known as El Profe, also known as Roberto,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:89-CR-232-3
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Roque Urdiales Garcia, federal prisoner # 49905-079, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), arguing that the district court abused its discretion because it did
not explain its decision, because it found he was not eligible for a sentence
reduction under Amendment 782, and because it did not consider whether a
reduction was warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 10/14/2016
Garcia has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. The district court correctly determined and
explained that Garcia was not eligible for a sentence reduction due to the
amount of drugs involved in the drug trafficking offenses. Under the 1987
Sentencing Guidelines in effect when Garcia committed the offenses, his base
offense level was 36 because the offenses involved the equivalent of 32.2
kilograms of heroin. Even after Amendment 782, Garcia’s base offense level
remained at level 36. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782 (Nov. 2014); U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(d). Because Amendment 782 did not have the effect of lowering
Garcia’s offense level, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27
(2010). Further, the district court was not required to give a more detailed
explanation of its decision. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th
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?