United States of America v. Antonio Herrera Reyes

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO HERRERA REYES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-50169
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05057-DMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Herrera Reyes appeals from the district court’s order denying his
motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see United
States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Herrera Reyes contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing
to calculate the amended Guidelines range and by declining to reduce his sentence.
The record reflects that the court determined that it had discretion to reduce
Herrera Reyes’s sentence because he was sentenced based on a Guidelines range
that was subsequently lowered. The court then considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, and based on those factors, declined to exercise its discretion to lower
Herrera Reyes’s sentence. Contrary to Herrera Reyes’s contention, the court
satisfied its procedural obligations. See United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092,
1096 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, in light of the nature of Herrera Reyes’s offense
and his criminal history, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Herrera
Reyes’s motion. See id.
AFFIRMED.
15-50169 2

-- 2 of 2 --