USA v. Magdaleno Rodriguez


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41584 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: EBC , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 09/05/2017 [16-41584]

Download PDF
Case: 16-41584 Document: 00514114189 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-41584 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 14, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MAGDALENO RODRIGUEZ, also known as Gordo, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:94-CR-199-3 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Magdaleno Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 61992-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence based on Amendment 782 to United States Sentencing Guidelines and the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. He contends that the district court erred in failing to evaluate the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and his postsentencing rehabilitation. We review the district court’s denial of a 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-41584 Document: 00514114189 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2017 No. 16-41584 § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). If a defendant is eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2), the district court must consider the relevant § 3553(a) factors to decide whether a sentence reduction is merited in whole or in part under the specific circumstances of the case. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). Contrary to Rodriguez’s assertion, the district court stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Cooley, 590 F.3d 293, 297-98 (5th Cir. 2009). With respect to Rodriguez’s argument that the court did not consider his postsentencing conduct, the record shows that he documented his rehabilitation efforts in his motion and that the district court thus had that information before it. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672-73. To the extent Rodriguez seeks to relitigate the appropriateness of the district court’s original findings regarding his role in the offense, he is not entitled to relief because a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not a full resentencing or an opportunity to challenge the original sentence. Dillon, 560 U.S. at 825-26; United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez has not shown that the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion was an abuse of the district court’s discretion. Rodriguez also has not shown that the interests of justice required the appointment of counsel for his § 3582(c)(2) motion. The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to appoint counsel. See Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007). 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?