USA v. Felipe Barrientos

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-51090 Affirmed ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: JES , Judge: RHB Mandate pull date is 10/03/2017 [16-51090]

Case: 16-51090

Document: 00514151696

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/12/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-51090
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
September 12, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
FELIPE BARRIENTOS,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:11-CR-2519-1
Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

In 2012, Felipe Barrientos pleaded guilty to possessing, with intent to
distribute, more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841. He received an enhanced statutory-minimum sentence of 120 months’
imprisonment.
Proceeding pro se, Barrientos appeals the denial of his motion, under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), for a sentence reduction based on Sentencing Guidelines

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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: 16-51090

Document: 00514151696

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/12/2017

No. 16-51090
Amendment 782.

Although acknowledging he received the statutory

minimum, Barrientos contends he is eligible for a reduction, because, inter
alia, the Guidelines are no longer mandatory.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a district court has discretion to
modify a sentence “based on a [Guidelines] range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission”. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). But, Barrientos’
sentence was not “based on” the Guidelines; and the court lacked authority to
reduce his sentence below the 10-year minimum sentence required by statute.
United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 578-81 (5th Cir. 2010); 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(B)(vii). Moreover, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) does not permit a full
resentencing, but merely permits a sentence reduction under limited
circumstances specified by the Sentencing Commission.

Dillon v. United

States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-26 (2010); United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235,
238 (5th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

2