USA v. Gilberto Hernandez

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Gilberto Hernandez. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-11002

Date Filed: 01/06/2016

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11002
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:92-cr-00173-FAM-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GILBERTO HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 6, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-11002

Date Filed: 01/06/2016

Page: 2 of 2

Gilberto Hernandez appeals pro se the denial of his motion to reduce his
sentence of imprisonment for life. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Hernandez sought a
reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
The district court did not err by denying Hernandez’s motion to reduce.
Because Hernandez’s sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum,
United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(b) (Nov. 1993), not on the
drug quantity tables, see id. § 2D1.1, he was ineligible for a reduction of his
sentence under Amendment 782, see id. § 1B1.10 cmt n.1(A). Hernandez argues
that he was entitled to a reduction under the statutory sentencing factors, see 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), but a district court cannot consider the sentencing factors unless
it determines that a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States
v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780–81 (11th Cir. 2000). The district court lacked
authority to reduce Hernandez’s sentence.
We AFFIRM the denial of Hernandez’s motion to reduce.

2