United States v. Adrian Carabello
685 F. App'x 319
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Adrian Carabello pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥1 kg of heroin and was sentenced to 168 months.
- He moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on U.S.S.G. Amendment 782.
- The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion, stating it had considered the § 3553(a) factors and § 1B1.10 policy statement and found a reduction unwarranted.
- Carabello argued the district court erred by failing to properly consider § 3553(a) factors, failing to state reasons for denial, and not considering his post‑sentencing conduct (programs completed and impending deportation).
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and considered whether the district court followed applicable law regarding discretionary reductions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion denying § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Carabello: denial was error; court failed to properly consider § 3553(a) and state reasons | Government: denial is discretionary; district court considered § 3553(a) and need not provide detailed reasons | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether district court had to explain its reasons in detail | Carabello: court failed to state reasons for denial | Government: no detailed explanation required under Fifth Circuit precedent | Detailed explanation not required; summary statement suffices |
| Whether district court had to consider post‑sentencing rehabilitative conduct | Carabello: court should have considered certificates and deportation | Government: such conduct need not be considered for § 3582(c)(2) reductions per policy statement and precedent | Court not required to consider post‑sentencing rehabilitation; omission not error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard: § 3582(c)(2) denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2009) (§ 3582(c)(2) reductions are discretionary even if eligibility requirements met)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (district court must consider § 3553(a) factors when deciding on § 3582(c)(2) reduction)
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (district court need not give detailed explanation and is not required to consider post‑sentencing rehabilitative conduct)