Case: 24-30065 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 24-30065 June 17, 2024 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Cesar Yarmy Cruz-Perez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:23-CR-38-1 ______________________________ Before Willett, Duncan, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Cesar Yarmy Cruz-Perez, federal prisoner # 53475-479, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 27-month sentence for illegal reentry. His motion was based on Part A of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Cruz-Perez argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion, contending that the _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-30065 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2024

No. 24-30065

district court’s order does not provide a sufficient basis for appellate review because it does not contain reasons for the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion and does not explicitly state that the district court considered the parties’ submissions.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 710 (5th Cir. 2018). Contrary to Cruz-Perez’s assertion, a district court is not required to provide detailed reasons for denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673-74 (5th Cir. 2009). In this case, the district court explicitly stated that it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Additionally, although the district court’s order states that it considered Cruz-Perez’s “motion,” we construe that to mean that the district court considered Cruz-Perez’s arguments raised in his memorandum filed in support of a sentence reduction. We further note that the district court judge who denied Cruz-Perez’s motion for § 3582(c)(2) relief is the same judge who sentenced him; the judge provided reasons at sentencing that implicated such § 3553(a) factors as the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offenses, to promote respect for the law, to afford adequate deterrence, and to provide just punishment, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B); and the judge denied Cruz-Perez’s motion a mere five months after sentencing him. On this record, we conclude that the district court had a reasoned basis for denying a sentence reduction as unwarranted. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 115-19 (2018).

Based on the foregoing, there is no basis for a determination that the district court abused its discretion. See Calton, 900 F.3d at 710. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.