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UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

Download PDF
Case: 16-41340 Document: 00514174870 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-41340 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 28, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. ESNEIDER HIDROBO, Defendant–Appellant. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 16-41340 Document: 00514174870 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2017 No. 16-41340 § 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). Although 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). 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?