United States v. Oscar Perez
670 F. App'x 257
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Oscar Perez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced in 2007 to 186 months' imprisonment and five years supervised release.
- Perez sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782, which lowered certain drug offense ranges.
- The district court denied Perez’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, stating it considered U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors but that the original sentence remained appropriate due to Perez’s extensive involvement and drug distribution history.
- Perez appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately weigh § 3553(a) factors, providing non-specific reasons, and not considering his post‑sentencing rehabilitation under Pepper v. United States.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and examined whether the district court considered the required factors and Pepper’s applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion denying § 3582(c)(2) reduction | District court failed to adequately weigh § 3553(a) and gave non‑specific reasons | District court considered § 1B1.10 and § 3553(a) and properly concluded original sentence remained appropriate | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether district court must expressly state § 3553(a) analysis on record | Perez: court’s non‑specific reasons insufficient to show consideration | Government: court need not expressly articulate § 3553(a) factors if record shows consideration | Court: explicit articulation not required; implicit consideration is sufficient |
| Whether district court had to consider post‑sentencing rehabilitation under Pepper during § 3582(c)(2) motion | Perez: district court should have considered Pepper and his rehabilitation | Government: Pepper does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) reduction proceedings | Pepper inapplicable here; district court not required to apply its analysis |
| Whether Perez was eligible for reduction under Amendment 782 | Perez: eligible (sentenced pre‑amendment) | Government: agreed he was eligible, but reduction discretionary | Eligibility undisputed; reduction remains discretionary based on § 3553(a) factors |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir.) (standard that § 3582(c)(2) decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion and courts need not articulate § 3553(a) factors expressly)
- United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir.) (abuse of discretion occurs if court commits legal error or clearly erroneous factual assessment)
- United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933 (5th Cir.) (district court must consider § 3553(a) factors but need not explicitly recite them)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S.) (when eligible under guideline amendments, district court must consider § 3553(a) factors in deciding whether to reduce sentence)
- United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir.) (implicit consideration of § 3553(a) factors in the record suffices)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (U.S.) (post‑sentencing rehabilitation considered when resentencing after vacatur on appeal; not controlling for § 3582(c)(2) reductions)