Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-41581 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed October 18, 2017
    Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Francisco Madrigal, Pro Se
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Francisco Madrigal pleaded guilty of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marihuana. His advisory guideline range was 120 months of imprisonment, which was the statutory minimum. The district court departed downward and imposed a term of 90 months. Madrigal challenges the denial of. his motion for a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

Here, however, the district court lacked authority to reduce Madrigal’s sentence because Madrigal’s advisory guideline range was governed by the statutory minimum. See United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 578-81 (5th Cir. 2010); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(vii); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a), p.s. & comment. (n.l(A)). Because Madrigal was not eligible for a reduction, the court was not authorized to grant him one.

The judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.