USA v. Roberto Victores
[D O NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT .S. COURT OF APPEALS U ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT N o . 09-12270 N o n -A rg u m en t Calendar ________________________ D . C. Docket No. 00-01130-CR-WJZ U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA,
NOV 08, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK FILED
Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROBERTO VICTORES, Defendant-Appellant.
________________________ A p p eal from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (N o v em b er 8, 2010) B efo re PRYOR, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:
Roberto Victores, proceeding pro se,1 appeals the denial of his motion to red u ce his 180-month prison sentence imposed following his conviction for p o ssessio n with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). After a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we a f f ir m . In April 2008, Victores filed a counseled motion for reduction of sentence u n d er 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Victores alleged that he was eligible for a sentence red u ctio n because of Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, w h ich reduced the advisory guideline range for most crack cocaine offenses. See g en erally United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 132526 (11th Cir. 2008). The d istrict court acknowledged that Victores's 180-month sentence was above the am en d ed guideline range, but stated that it "would still impose a sentence of 180m o n th s" because of "the statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and [Victores's] ex ten siv e criminal history." The court therefore denied Victores's motion, and he d id not appeal. In March 2009, Victores filed a second counseled motion to amend his sen ten ce under § 3582(c)(2). Victores again relied on Amendment 706 to establish h is eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) relief, and contended that his significant
Accordingly, we will liberally construe Mr. Victores's pleadings. See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 2
rehabilitative efforts warranted "revisit[ing]" the courts prior analysis of the 18 U .S .C . § 3553(a) factors. Despite lauding Victores's efforts, the district court ag ain denied relief. Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify a term of imprisonment in th e case of a defendant who was sentenced based on a guideline range that the S en ten cin g Commission subsequently lowered. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). "We rev iew de novo a district court's conclusions about the scope of its legal authority u n d er 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)." United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th C ir. 2008), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1657 (2009). Moreover, "[w]e m ay affirm the district court's judgment on any ground that appears in the record, w h eth er or not that ground was relied upon or even considered by the court b elo w ." Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007). W e need not recount the district court's reasoning, because under the law of th e case doctrine the court properly denied Victores's second § 3582(c)(2) motion. Under this doctrine, courts are "bound by findings of fact and conclusions of law" p rev io u sly made in the same case unless "(1) a subsequent trial produces su b stan tially different evidence, (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary d ecisio n of law applicable to that issue, or (3) the prior decision was clearly erro n eo u s and would work manifest injustice." United States v. Stinson, 97 F.3d
466, 469 (11th Cir. 1996). Mr. Victores did not appeal the denial of his first § 3582(c)(2) motion, and accordingly it became the law of the case. See United S tates v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir. 1997). As a result, on th e record before us, his failure to appeal the first motion forecloses the relief he n o w seeks. F o r the foregoing reasons, the denial of Mr. Victores's second motion to red u ce his sentence is AFFIRMED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?