USA v. Clinton Rodriguez


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-30626 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: JLD , Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 01/06/2017 [16-30626]

Download PDF
Case: 16-30626 Document: 00513801322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-30626 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 16, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. CLINTON RODRIGUEZ, also known as South, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:07-CR-352-9 Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Clinton Rodriguez appeals the district court’s refusal to grant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Rodriguez argues that he was eligible for a sentence reduction and should have received one even though his initial sentence was twice reduced for his substantial assistance to authorities. The district court correctly recognized that Rodriguez was eligible for a reduction, but it declined to award one, noting that Rodriguez’s current 150- 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-30626 Document: 00513801322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 No. 16-30626 month sentence was already well below the 240-month statutory minimum sentence he originally faced. The district court’s decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and it was not required to reduce the sentence simply because Rodriguez is eligible. See United States v. Cooley, 590 F.3d 293, 297 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). The court considered the relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion by declining to award any further reduction. See Cooley, 590 F.3d at 297. The judgment is 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?