USA v. Jose Barajas

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jose Magana Barajas. 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: 16-15873

Date Filed: 05/24/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15873
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:05-cr-00477-CC-GGB-8

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE MAGANA BARAJAS,
a.k.a. Sope,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(May 24, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-15873

Date Filed: 05/24/2017

Page: 2 of 4

Jose Magana Barajas, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court did not err in
denying Barajas’s motion because Amendment 782 did not subsequently lower his
guideline range. Accordingly, we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of
its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1319
(11th Cir. 2012). We liberally construe pro se pleadings. Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). The defendant, as the movant, bears
the burden of establishing that a retroactive amendment actually lowers his
guideline range. United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013).
However, § 3582(c)(2) does not grant the court jurisdiction to consider extraneous
resentencing issues, including collateral attacks on a sentence. United States v.
Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000).
Ordinarily, a district court may not modify a defendant’s term of
imprisonment once imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). However, a district court may
reduce a defendant’s sentence if the term of imprisonment was “based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission.” Id. § 3582(c)(2). For a defendant to be eligible for such a reduction
based on a subsequent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, the relevant
2

Case: 16-15873

Date Filed: 05/24/2017

Page: 3 of 4

amendment must be listed in § 1B1.10(d). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). Because
Amendment 782 is one of the listed amendments that applies retroactively, it may
serve as the basis for a § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce sentence. Id.
§§ 1B1.10(a)(1), (d).
Nonetheless, the grounds upon which a district court may reduce a
defendant’s sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) are narrow. United States v. Berry,
701 F.3d 374, 376 (11th Cir. 2012). A district court may not reduce a defendant’s
term of imprisonment unless a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A
reduction is inconsistent with the Guidelines’ policy statement if the amendment
does not lower the defendant’s “applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Thus, “[w]here a retroactively applicable guideline amendment
reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range
upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a
reduction in sentence.” Hamilton, 715 F.3d at 337.
Amendment 782 revised the drug quantity tables in § 2D1.1, resulting in a
two-level reduction to the base offense level applicable to most drug offenses. See
U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782 (2014). However, for defendants charged with an
offense involving 330,000 kilograms of marijuana, the base offense level remained
38. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2D1.11(c)(1)(2007) to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1)(2016).
3

Case: 16-15873

Date Filed: 05/24/2017

Page: 4 of 4

Here, the district court did not err in denying Barajas’s § 3582(c)(2) motion
because Amendment 782 did not lower his guideline range. Retroactively
applying Amendment 782 would not decrease Barajas’s base offense level under
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) because he was held responsible for 330,000 kilograms of
marijuana, which continued to retain a base offense level of 38. U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(c)(1). Accordingly, Amendment 782 does not authorize a reduction in
Barajas’s sentence. See Hamilton, 715 F.3d at 337. Furthermore, to the extent that
Barajas challenges his sentence based on the district court’s error, such a claim is
an extraneous resentencing issue which cannot be addressed in a § 3582(c)(2)
proceeding. Bravo, 203 F.3d at 82. Thus, the district court was not authorized to
reduce Barajas’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2).
AFFIRMED.

4