USA v. Michael Hawley
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41038 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: ECP , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 07/12/2017 [16-41038]
Case: 16-41038
Document: 00514043151
Page: 1
Date Filed: 06/21/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-41038
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 21, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MICHAEL JAY HAWLEY,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:08-CR-49-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Michael Jay Hawley, federal prisoner # 15687-078, was convicted of
conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of a firearm
during and in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He appeals the denial
of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence. Hawley argues
that he is entitled to a reduction under Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782
and contends that the district court should have applied the offense level
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-41038
Document: 00514043151
Page: 2
Date Filed: 06/21/2017
No. 16-41038
agreed upon in the plea agreement. He also asserts that the district court
offered insufficient reasons for denying the motion.
Hawley is ineligible for a sentence reduction because he was sentenced
below the amended guidelines range of imprisonment.
See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), p.s.; United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir.
2009). The district court was not required to provide reasons for its denial of
the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir.
2009).
The judgment of the district court 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?