United States v. Santillan-Tabares ( 2021 )

Case: 20-50374 Document: 00516130754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 14, 2021
No. 20-50374
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Heriberto Santillan-Tabares,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CR-2291-1
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
In 2005, Heriberto Santillan-Tabares, federal prisoner # 42055-180,
was sentenced to 300 months of imprisonment after pleading guilty to
engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise. In 2019, he filed 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motions, and his sentence was reduced to 274 months of
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 20-50374 Document: 00516130754 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2021
No. 20-50374
imprisonment. He appeals this reduction and the denial of his subsequent
motion for reconsideration. He argues that the district court erred by failing
to award him the full two-level reduction pursuant to Amendment 782 to
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, further reduce his sentence to 240 months of
imprisonment, and consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
Santillan-Tabares fails to show that the district court abused its
discretion in reducing his sentence to 274 months of imprisonment. See
United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 218 (5th Cir. 1996). The extent of any
sentence reduction is within the full discretion of the district court. See Dillon
v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). Furthermore, it is clear from the
record that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors; any further explanation of this consideration or the reasoning for
Santillan-Tabares’s sentence reduction was not required. See United States
v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673-74 (5th Cir. 2009). He also has not shown that
the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for
reconsideration without first holding an evidentiary hearing. See United
States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344, 346-47 (5th Cir. 2008); Dickens v. Lewis, 750
F.2d 1251, 1255 (5th Cir. 1984). Finally, Santillan-Tabares fails to
demonstrate that the district court plainly erred by failing to give him notice
that counsel was appointed or further opportunity to participate in the
§ 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 671; Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Santillan-Tabares’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
His motion for the extension of time to file an appellant’s brief is DENIED
as unnecessary.
2