Case: 25-10288 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2025

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

No. 25-10288 FILED December 12, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Angel Jesus Carvajal Bruzual, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CR-140-1 ______________________________ Before Richman, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Angel Jesus Carvajal Bruzual (Carvajal), federal prisoner #54015-510, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a sentence reduction based on Amendment 829 to the Sentencing Guidelines. That amendment, effective November 1, 2024, modified

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-10288 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2025

No. 25-10288

U.S.S.G. § 5H1.1, p.s. Carvajal contends the district court erred both in denying the motion and in offering no explanation for doing so. We review the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 710 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

Amendment 829, however, is not among the covered amendments listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), p.s. Consequently, the district court lacked authority to reduce Carvajal’s sentence on that basis. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(A), p.s.; Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010) (holding that § 3582(c)(2) authorizes reductions only when consistent with § 1B1.10 and that eligibility is assessed at the threshold step). Because Carvajal is ineligible for a reduction as a matter of law, the district court committed no error in denying his motion, see Calton, 900 F.3d at 710, and no further explanation was required. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 116 (2018); United States v. Cooley, 590 F.3d 293, 298 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief.

Carvajal also moves for appointed counsel. Although counsel may be appointed in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding when the interests of justice so require, defendants are not entitled to counsel as of right. See United States v. Robinson, 542 F.3d 1045, 1052 (5th Cir. 2008). Carvajal has not shown that the interests of justice warrant counsel here. We therefore DENY his motion for appointed counsel.