USA v. Jose Salinas-Landaverde


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-41460 Affirmed] Judge: EGJ, Judge: JES, Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 03/28/2017; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Jose Ignacio Salinas-Landaverde [8299891-2] [15-41460]

Download PDF
Case: 15-41460 Document: 00513900670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-41460 Summary Calendar FILED March 7, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, versus JOSE IGNACIO SALINAS-LANDAVERDE, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:14-CR-303-1 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Salinas-Landaverde, federal prisoner # 65352-379, appeals, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-41460 Document: 00513900670 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2017 No. 15-41460 complaining of the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction per 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He sought the reduction under Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines, effective November 1, 2014. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 788. The court denied the motion because Salinas-Landaverde was sentenced after the effective date. Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a sentence “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission” if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Commission. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824–26 (2010). A defendant is eligible for a reduction if the range originally applicable to him was lowered by an amendment. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1), p.s. (2014). Because Salinas-Landaverde was afforded the full benefit of Amendment 782, his sentencing range was not lowered as a result of it, and he was not eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 824–26. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Salinas-Landaverde’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. 2

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?