Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10483/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10483-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfredo Medina
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10483

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFREDO MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-133-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfredo Medina appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce the 480-month sentence imposed on his 

conviction for distributing more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. Medina

contends that he is entitled to a two-level reduction in his offense level based 

on Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 and that the district court denied his 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 11, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10483 Document: 00513830667 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2017
No. 16-10483

2

motion without considering the sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a).

Under § 3582(c)(2), a sentence may be modified if the defendant’s term 

of imprisonment was based on a sentencing range later lowered by the 

Sentencing Commission and made retroactively available. U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10(a); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-26 (2010). When 

considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court is to conduct a two-step

analysis. Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826. The court must first determine whether the 

defendant is eligible for a reduction under § 1B1.10. Id. at 827. If he is, the 

district court must then “consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and 

determine whether, in its discretion,” a reduction is warranted.

Our analysis ends with the first step. Medina was held accountable for 

162.84 kilograms of methamphetamine. At the time of his sentencing, the base 

offense level was 38 for an offense involving 15 kilograms or more of 

methamphetamine. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (Nov. 2009). Amendment 782 

provides a base offense level of 38 for an offense involving 45 kilograms or more 

of methamphetamine. So the 162.84 kilograms of methamphetamine for which 

Medina was responsible still results in a base offense level of 38. See U.S.S.G.

app. C., amend. 782; § 2D1.1(c)(1) (Nov. 2014). Because Medina’s sentencing 

range was not reduced as a result of Amendment 782, the district court lacked 

authority to modify the term of imprisonment. See § 3582(c)(2); Dillon, 560 

U.S. at 819. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10483 Document: 00513830667 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2017