United States v. Gary Alfaro , 697 F. App'x 412 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 16-10054      Document: 00514167009         Page: 1    Date Filed: 09/22/2017
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 16-10054                                FILED
    Summary Calendar                      September 22, 2017
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    GARY EQUILUZ ALFARO, also known as Gordo, also known as G2, also
    known as G.,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:10-CR-42-3
    Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Gary Equiluz Alfaro, federal prisoner # 43041-177, appeals the district
    court’s denial of his 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction
    based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He contends that the
    district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion in 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-10054     Document: 00514167009      Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/22/2017
    No. 16-10054
    “Blanket Form Order” without meaningfully considering the relevant factors,
    specifically, his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts.
    The district court correctly recognized that Alfaro was eligible for a
    sentence reduction. See Dillon v. United States, 
    560 U.S. 817
    , 826-27 (2010).
    However, the district court was under no obligation to grant him one. See
    United States v. Evans, 
    587 F.3d 667
    , 673 (5th Cir. 2009). Alfaro’s arguments
    in favor of a sentence reduction, including his post-sentencing rehabilitative
    efforts, were set forth in his § 3582(c)(2) motion. His post-sentencing conduct,
    both positive and negative, was also addressed in the probation officer’s
    worksheet. In denying Alfaro’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court noted
    that he had several disciplinary cases, the most recent one less than two
    months prior to the court’s order. Because the record shows that the district
    court gave due consideration to Alfaro’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, as well as the
    applicable policy statements and sentencing factors, Alfaro has not shown that
    the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. See United
    States v. Henderson, 
    636 F.3d 713
    , 717-18 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v.
    Whitebird, 
    55 F.3d 1007
    , 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the district court’s
    judgment is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-10054

Citation Numbers: 697 F. App'x 412

Filed Date: 9/22/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023