UNITED STATES v. COTA RUIZ (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Emanuel Gerardo Cota-Ruiz 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, and we affirm.

The district court denied Cota-Ruiz's motion for a sentence reduction on two grounds: (1) Cota-Ruiz was ineligible for a reduction under section 3582(c)(2), and (2) even if he were eligible, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not warrant a reduction. We need not determine whether Cota-Ruiz is eligible for a reduction because, even assuming he is eligible, the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that a reduction was not warranted in light of the totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offense, Cota-Ruiz's role as a leader, and his willingness to use violence. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2) is only available if defendant is eligible for a reduction and district court determines a reduction is warranted under the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the circumstances of the case); United States v. Chaney, 581 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009) (discretionary denials of sentence reduction motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Cota-Ruiz also argues that the district court failed to address explicitly his arguments in favor of a sentence reduction. Assuming “district courts have equivalent duties when initially sentencing a defendant and when later modifying the sentence,” it is apparent from the record as a whole that the court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors, as well as Cota-Ruiz's arguments, in rendering its decision. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1959, 1965, 201 L.Ed.2d 359 (2018). The court was not required to provide a more detailed explanation of its reasoning. See id. at 1966-67.

AFFIRMED.