USA v. Francisco Sanchez-Villarreal, No. 16-41119 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-41119 Document: 00514217781 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-41119 Summary Calendar FILED October 31, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FRANCISCO JAVIER SANCHEZ-VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:15-CR-223-1 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Francisco Javier Sanchez-Villarreal appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence of 155 months of imprisonment, imposed following his conviction of possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He sought a sentence reduction based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016). On May 23, 2017, this court issued its opinion Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-41119 Document: 00514217781 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2017 No. 16-41119 in Sanchez-Villarreal’s direct appeal of the district court’s judgment of conviction and sentence. United States v. Sanchez-Villarreal, 857 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2017). This court vacated Sanchez-Villarreal’s 155-month sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing. Id. at 722-23. Because the § 3582(c)(2) motion related solely to the 155-month sentence imposed pursuant to the district court’s judgment of October 19, 2015 (which has now been vacated), Sanchez-Villarreal’s appeal must be DISMISSED as moot. Sanchez-Villarreal’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and his motion for the appointment of counsel are DENIED as unnecessary. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.