Case ID: f-appx_702/html/0182-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro CAMACHO-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6638
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 16, 2017
    Decided: November 20, 2017
    Pedro Camacho-Castillo, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM

Pedro Camacho-Castillo appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3682(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

In this case the district court correctly found that Amendment 782 would not lower Camacho-Castillo’s Guidelines range because Camacho-Castillo’s Guidelines range was calculated using the 2014 Guidelines, which included the changes to the Drug Quantity Table made by Amendment 782. Moreover, the district court sentenced Camacho-Castillo pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, and the record makes clear that the sentence was not based on the Guidelines range. See United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271, 276-77 (4th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, No. 17-142, — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 252, — L.Ed.2d -, 2017 WL 3219499 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2017). Accordingly, Camacho-Castillo is not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782, and we affirm the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED