UNITED STATES v. ROSALES (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-06-21No. No. 20-10648

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Rosales's § 3582(c)(2) motion and motion for reconsideration, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce his sentence.

Javier Rosales, a federal prisoner serving a 324-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, sought a reduction in his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782. The district court denied both his initial motion and his subsequent motion for reconsideration, reasoning that the seriousness of his conduct warranted maintaining his original sentence. On appeal, Rosales contended the district court abused its discretion by improperly reweighting evidence and failing to apply the applicable 62-month reduction. The appellate court rejected this argument, finding that the district court properly exercised its discretion by reviewing all relevant facts and applying the statutory sentencing factors before deciding not to reduce the sentence.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether district court abused discretion in denying § 3582(c)(2) sentence-reduction motion
Whether Amendment 782 applied and entitled defendant to mandatory sentence reduction
Whether district court improperly reweighted evidence at original sentencing

Procedural posture

Rosales appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the subsequent denial of his motion for reconsideration.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

In 2010, Javier Rosales, federal prisoner # 39033-177, was sentenced to 324 months of imprisonment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine. He now appeals the denial of the 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion he filed in 2020 and the denial of his subsequent motion for reconsideration. He argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 782, and he contends that the district court improperly reweighed the evidence before it at the original sentencing to offset the 62-month applicable reduction.

We pretermit any issues concerning the timeliness of Rosaless motion for reconsideration and notice of appeal; the Government has not raised such challenges, and any untimeliness would not present a jurisdictional impediment. See United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir. 2007).

The district court concluded, as a matter of discretion, that Rosales should not receive a reduction in sentence. Both in its original order and the order denying the motion for reconsideration, the court explained the reasons it would not reduce Rosaless sentence, which focused on the seriousness of Rosaless conduct. The district court reviewed all the relevant facts and materials, considered the request in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and declined to grant a reduction. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rosaless § 3582(c)(2) motion or his motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344, 346-47 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.