USA v. Melisa Zuniga

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11593 Affirmed] Judge: PEH, Judge: ECP, Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 06/06/2017 [16-11593]

Case: 16-11593

Document: 00513994483

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/16/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-11593
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
May 16, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MELISA ZUNIGA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-221-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Melisa Zuniga, federal prisoner # 47145-177, appeals the district court’s
denial of her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce her sentence based on
Amendment 794 of the Guidelines. She argues that the amendment is a
clarifying amendment and should be applied retroactively.
This court reviews de novo whether a district court has authority to
reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273, 276

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-11593

Document: 00513994483

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/16/2017

No. 16-11593
(5th Cir. 2010).

Section 3582(c)(2) applies only to retroactive guidelines

amendments as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). See Dillon v. United States,
560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). Amendment 794 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d)
as an amendment for which a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) may be
granted.

See § 1B1.10(d).

Therefore, the district court did not err in

determining that it did not have the authority to reduce Zuniga’s sentence
based on Amendment 794.

See Jones, 596 F.3d at 276; United States v.

Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

2