United States v. Luis Velez, 676 F. App'x 362

Luis Angel Velez was sentenced to 135 months for possession with intent to distribute >50 kg of marijuana.
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines reduced most drug offense offense levels by two, lowering Velez’s guideline range to 108–135 months.
Velez filed an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a sentence reduction; the district court denied it, noting the original sentence remained within the amended range.
The district court stated it considered the § 3553(a) factors and concluded the original sentence remained appropriate given the drug quantity, Velez’s role, and criminal history.
Velez argued the court abused its discretion by (1) failing to follow Dillon’s process for § 3582(c)(2) reductions, (2) relying on sentencing factors not considered at original sentencing, and (3) ignoring the Government’s original recommendation for the low-end sentence.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, finding the district court gave due consideration to the motion and § 3553(a) factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court followed Dillon two-step procedure for § 3582(c)(2)	Velez: court failed to follow Dillon’s required process	Government: court acknowledged eligibility and considered potential reduction	Held: No error — court acknowledged eligibility and implicitly considered possible reduction (Dillon satisfied)
Whether court improperly relied on factors not considered at original sentencing when denying reduction	Velez: court relied on new or different § 3553(a) factors	Government: court must conduct contemporaneous § 3553(a) review in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings	Held: No abuse — contemporaneous consideration of § 3553(a) is required and was satisfied
Whether court was bound by Government’s original recommendation or required to reduce sentence because Government had recommended low-end initially	Velez: government recommended bottom-of-guidelines originally; no reason not to reduce now	Government: § 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing; court is not obligated to reduce and not bound by prosecutor’s recommendation	Held: No error — court not obliged to reduce or follow gov’t original recommendation

United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for § 3582(c)(2) denials and requirement to consider § 3553(a))
United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir.) (no abuse where district court gave due consideration to motion and § 3553(a) factors)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (two-step inquiry for district courts considering § 3582(c)(2) motions)
United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933 (5th Cir.) (probation officer addendum may indicate applicable reduction range)
United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir.) (§ 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not a full resentencing)