USA v. Arturo Meza


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-40006 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: JWE , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 09/15/2017 [17-40006]

Download PDF
Case: 17-40006 Document: 00514131569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-40006 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit FILED August 25, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ARTURO MEZA, also known as Junior, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-47-9 Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Arturo Meza, federal prisoner # 07092-078, was convicted by a jury of conspiracy and substantive drug offenses involving the distribution of heroin and cocaine. He was sentenced to 360 months of imprisonment on five of the counts and 240 months of imprisonment on two of the counts. Seeking a reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), Meza contends that there is an unwarranted disparity between his sentence and that 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-40006 Document: 00514131569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2017 No. 17-40006 of his brother and co-defendant, who was convicted in the same case and received a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. The district court denied Meza’s motion on the basis that the guideline amendment did not affect Meza’s guideline range because his base offense level was based on the deaths or serious bodily injuries that resulted from his heroin distribution, not the quantity of drugs he distributed. Meza does not address the district court’s determination that he was not eligible for a reduction because his offense level was not affected by the amendment. Even if he were eligible, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a reduction for the reason argued by Meza. Meza does not allege any facts suggesting that there is an unwarranted sentencing disparity among similarly situated defendants. He provides no details of any similarities between his and his brother’s offense conduct, criminal records, other history, or characteristics. His conclusory assertion that his brother is similarly situated fails to show that an unwarranted disparity exists. See United States v. Guillermo Balleza, 613 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2010). The fact that a co-defendant received a sentence reduction does not alone show that the denial of Meza’s § 3582(c)(2) motion created an unwarranted sentencing disparity. See United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir. 2010). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Meza’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). 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?