United States v. Christopher Lopez , 632 F. App'x 240 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-50391 Document: 00513362007 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-50391 FILED
Summary Calendar January 29, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CHRISTOPHER RAY LOPEZ, also known as Ray Christopher Lopez,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:11-CR-1985
Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Christopher Ray Lopez, federal prisoner # 73090-180, appeals the denial
of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based upon
retroactive Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. Lopez argues that the district
court abused its discretion by improperly weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-50391 Document: 00513362007 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2016
No. 15-50391
In determining whether to reduce a sentence, the district court first
determines whether the defendant is eligible for a sentence modification. See
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). If the court determines that
a defendant is eligible for a sentence modification, it must then consider the
applicable § 3553(a) factors to decide whether a reduction ‘is warranted in
whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Id. at 827.
Our review of the district court’s refusal to lower Lopez’s sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2) is for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Henderson,
636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011).
Here, the district court implicitly found Lopez eligible for the reduction
but declined to exercise its discretion to reduce his sentence. See Dillon,
560 U.S. at 827; United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 2011). The
record reflects that the district court considered Lopez’s arguments in favor of
a sentence reduction and conducted a contemporaneous review of the § 3553(a)
factors, which was all that it was required to do. See United States v. Evans,
587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). Despite Lopez’s arguments to the contrary,
the district court has no obligation to grant § 3582(c)(2) relief, see United States
v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir. 2010), and no abuse of discretion has
been shown. The district court’s order is AFFIRMED.
2