US v. Fernando Sanchez-Almaraz

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:06-cr-00220-BO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999915328]. Mailed to: Fernando Sanchez-Almaraz. [16-6796]

Appeal: 16-6796

Doc: 6

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6796

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FERNANDO SANCHEZ-ALMARAZ, a/k/a Flaco,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00220-BO-1)

Submitted:

August 19, 2016

Decided:

August 23, 2016

Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fernando Sanchez-Almaraz, Appellant Pro Se.
Jane J. Jackson,
Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6796

Doc: 6

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Fernando

Sanchez-Almaraz

(Sanchez)

appeals

the

district

court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion,
in

which

he

sought

a

reduction

of

his

sentence

Amendment 782 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

based

on

We affirm.

Sanchez was held accountable at sentencing for a quantity
of

marijuana

and

cocaine

with

a

marijuana

equivalency

360,063.95 kilograms, resulting in base offense level 38.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2006).
Amendment

782,

the

marijuana

remains

base

offense

unchanged.

level

See

for

USSG

that

See
Under

quantity

§ 2D1.1(c)(1)

of

of

(2015).

Accordingly, because Amendment 782 did not lower the applicable
sentencing range, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez’s motion.
States

v.

Mann,

709

standard of review).

F.3d

301,

304

(4th

Cir.

See United

2013)

(stating

We therefore affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2