Case: 24-40006 Document: 71-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 24-40006 FILED December 10, 2024 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jose De La Cruz Claros-Amaya, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-28-6 ______________________________ Before Richman, Douglas, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Jose De La Cruz Claros-Amaya, federal prisoner number 27440-078, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Part B, Subpart 1 of Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. His motion requested a reduction of his 140-month sentence for conspiracy to import and to manufacture and _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-40006 Document: 71-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2024

No. 24-40006

distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, intending and knowing that the cocaine would be unlawfully imported into the United States. The district court determined that Claros-Amaya was not eligible for a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 due to his aggravating role adjustment under U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.1(c), and it alternatively reasoned that, “[e]ven if eligible, the Court would not reduce the sentence.”

Claros-Amaya argues that the district court erred in denying his motion because, under the rule of lenity, his aggravating role adjustment alone did not disqualify him from receiving a sentence reduction under § 4C1.1 because § 4C1.1(a)(10) should be interpreted to allow for a reduction if he did not both receive an aggravating role adjustment and engage in a continuing criminal enterprise. Claros-Amaya’s attorney-prepared briefs do not provide any facts or arguments challenging the district court’s consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, nor do they otherwise challenge the district court’s determination that even if Claros-Amaya was eligible, the court would not have reduced his sentence. Claros-Amaya has abandoned this issue by failing to brief it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986).

In light of the foregoing, there is no basis for a determination that the district court abused its discretion. See United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 710 (5th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.