USA v. Jose Salinas-Landaverde

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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