USA v. Esneider Hidrobo
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41340 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: PRO , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 10/19/2017; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Esneider Hidrobo [8589739-2] [16-41340]
Date Filed: 09/28/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
September 28, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:10-CR-595-1
Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Esneider Hidrobo, federal prisoner # 49387-019, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion. In that motion, he sought a reduction of his 196-month
sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five
kilograms of cocaine in accordance with Amendment 782 to the Sentencing
Guidelines. We review the denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 09/28/2017
§ 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d
713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
On appeal, Hidrobo maintains that he was eligible for a reduction under
Amendment 782. The district court explicitly acknowledged his eligibility for
relief. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). To the extent that
Hidrobo may be arguing that the district court was therefore obliged to reduce
his sentence, he is incorrect. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673
& n.9 (5th Cir. 2009).
The record shows that the district court gave due consideration to the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature of the underlying offense and the
need to protect the public.
See U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL
§ 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(i)-(ii) (U.S. SENTENCING COMM’N 2010).
Hidrobo notes that, as an illegal alien, he is not eligible for various Bureau of
Prison programs, he has not demonstrated that the district court abused its
discretion in its denial of relief. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717; Evans, 587
F.3d at 673. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Hidrobo’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See United States v.
Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995).
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?