USA v. Manuel Ramirez-Arellano
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50187 Affirmed] Judge: EGJ, Judge: JES, Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 01/10/2017 [16-50187]
Case: 16-50187
Document: 00513805844
Page: 1
Date Filed: 12/20/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-50187
Summary Calendar
FILED
December 20, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MANUEL RAMIREZ-ARELLANO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:12-CR-1929-1
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Manuel Ramirez-Arellano, who is serving a 63-month prison sentence
after pleading guilty to conspiracy to import more than one kilogram of heroin,
appeals the district court’s decision to deny his motion for a sentence
modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Through that motion, he requested
that the court reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50187
Document: 00513805844
Page: 2
Date Filed: 12/20/2016
No. 16-50187
Guidelines, which had the effect of retroactively lowering most drug-related
base offense levels by two levels.
Ramirez-Arellano has not shown that the district court abused its
discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d
713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). The court correctly recognized that he was eligible
for a reduction; however, it denied the motion as a matter of discretion citing
the nature and circumstances of the offense, i.e., the large quantity of heroin
for which Ramirez-Arellano was held responsible, which is an appropriate
factor to consider. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010); 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). In addition, the district court had before it RamirezArellano’s arguments in favor of a sentence reduction and gave due
consideration to the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Whitebird, 55
F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).
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?