United States v. Alexis Estevez, 700 F. App'x 389 (5th Cir. 2017). · Go Syfert
United States v. Alexis Estevez, 700 F. App'x 389 (5th Cir. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
Alexis ESTEVEZ, Defendant-Appellant
17-40536 Summary Calendar.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 8, 2017.
Unpublished opinion
700 F. App'x 389
Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Alexis Estevez, Pro Se
King, Elrod, Higginson.
Unpublished  |  Non Direct Criminal
PER CURIAM: *

Alexis Estevez, federal prisoner # 71905-079, appeals the district court’s grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. Estevez argues that the district court erred in reducing his sentence on the possession-with-intent-to-distribute-marijuana count to 97 months rather than to 87 months. He asserts that his total original sentence of 130 months was in the middle of the guidelines range and that the district court was obligated to give him a reduction that resulted in a total sentence in the middle of the amended range. We review the district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009).

A district court abuses its discretion by making a legal error, basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of evidence, or by failing to consider factors that it is required by law to examine. United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 2011). The record reflects that the district court considered the policy statement of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Estevez cannot show that the district court abused its discretion by not granting him a greater reduction in sentence. United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.