Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06796/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06796-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fernando Sanchez-Almaraz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6796

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

FERNANDO SANCHEZ-ALMARAZ, a/k/a Flaco,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00220-BO-1)

Submitted: August 19, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016

Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fernando Sanchez-Almaraz, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, 

Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6796 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Fernando Sanchez-Almaraz (Sanchez) appeals the district 

court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion, 

in which he sought a reduction of his sentence based on 

Amendment 782 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

Sanchez was held accountable at sentencing for a quantity 

of marijuana and cocaine with a marijuana equivalency of 

360,063.95 kilograms, resulting in base offense level 38. See

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2006). Under 

Amendment 782, the base offense level for that quantity of 

marijuana remains unchanged. See USSG § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2015). 

Accordingly, because Amendment 782 did not lower the applicable 

sentencing range, we conclude that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez’s motion. See United 

States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating 

standard of review). We therefore affirm. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED 

Appeal: 16-6796 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 2