Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20634/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20634-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Esnoraldo De Jesus Posada-Rios
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20634

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ESNORALDO DE JESUS POSADA-RIOS, also known as Juan Francisco 

Perez, also known as Hector Fuentes,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:92-CR-137-2

Before BARKSDALE, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, Esnoraldo de Jesus Posada-Rios, federal prisoner 

# 60112-079, challenges the denial of two of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motions

for reduction of the concurrent life sentences imposed following his convictions 

in 1993 for: conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); participation in a racketeering enterprise, in violation 

* 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

March 25, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20634 Document: 00515359530 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2020
No. 19-20634

2

of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); and conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, 

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. The denial of a 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion generally; but whether 

the district court had authority to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is 

reviewed de novo. United States v. Morgan, 866 F.3d 674, 675 (5th Cir. 2017)

(citations omitted).

The district court determined correctly that Amendments 782 (lowering 

drug-related base offense levels) and 788 (applying Amendment 782 

retroactively) did not lower Posada’s Sentencing Guidelines sentencing range

because, although Amendment 782 reduced his base offense level by two levels,

his total offense level remained unchanged by the amendment. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1); U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 782; Morgan, 

866 F.3d at 675. And, Amendment 599 (clarifying when defendants sentenced 

for federal firearm offenses may receive weapon enhancements for other 

offenses) is not implicated by his sentence because he was not convicted of an 

offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (prohibiting, inter alia, firearm possession 

during a drug transaction). See U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 599; United States v. 

Dixon, 273 F.3d 636, 643–44 (5th Cir. 2001). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-20634 Document: 00515359530 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2020