United States v. Enrique Morejon ( 2016 )

Case: 15-40979 Document: 00513588872 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-40979 FILED
Summary Calendar July 12, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ENRIQUE ALBERTO MOREJON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:05-CR-37-1
Before DAVIS, JONES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Enrique Alberto Morejon, federal prisoner # 26859-050, appeals the
district court’s grant of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) based upon Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He
argues that the district court erred in reducing his sentence to only 133 months
without holding a hearing because he should have had notice and an
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-40979 Document: 00513588872 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2016
No. 15-40979
opportunity to contest or challenge the “new information” that the district
court relied upon in determining his sentence reduction.
We review the district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence
under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Evans, 587
F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). In assessing whether to grant a sentence
reduction, the district court considered Morejon’s § 3582(c)(2) motion; the
written plea agreement; the original and revised guidelines ranges of
imprisonment; and the presentence report (PSR), which detailed the facts
surrounding Morejon’s failure to appear for his original sentencing hearing and
his subsequent arrest. The district court exercised its discretion and granted
a reduction that was within the amended guidelines range. See Evans, 587
F.3d at 673. While Morejon suggests that the district court did not sufficiently
reduce his sentence, his argument is misguided. Because the district court was
not obligated to reduce Morejon’s sentence at all, the district court did not have
to reduce it further than it did within the recalculated guidelines range. Id.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not granting
Morejon a greater reduction in sentence. See id.
Morejon does not show that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
See FED. R. CRIM. P. 43(b)(4); United States v. Patterson, 42 F.3d 246, 248-49
(5th Cir. 1994). Further, while a district court that intends to rely on new
evidence in ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion should give the defendant adequate
notice and an opportunity to respond, there was no new evidence considered
by the district court in ruling on Morejon’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. Cf. United
States v. Mueller, 168 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1999).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2