Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03151/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03151-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Mendoza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JESUS MENDOZA, a/k/a Silva, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-3151 

(D.C. No. 6:02-CR-10074-MLB-2) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

After the United States Sentencing Commission adopted a retroactive amendment 

to the Sentencing Guidelines for various drug offenses, Defendant moved for a reduction 

in his sentence. The district court denied the motion because Defendant’s present 

sentence is below the guideline sentencing range computed under the amended 

guidelines. Defendant appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 

On November 20, 2006, Defendant pleaded guilty in the United States District 

Court for the District of Kansas to violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

March 30, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-3151 Document: 01019594559 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 1 
2 

856(a)(1). The district court, without objection from Defendant, calculated a guideline 

sentencing range of 324–405 months but varied downward and sentenced Defendant to 

240 months’ imprisonment. 

The Sentencing Commission later adopted Amendment 782, which reduces by two 

levels many of the base offense levels assigned for drug offenses. The amendment is 

retroactive. Applying it to Defendant would reduce his guideline sentencing range from 

324–405 months to 262–327 months. Although it is not in the record, a document from 

Defendant was construed by the district court as a motion to reduce his sentence because 

of the amendment. 

“A federal court generally ‘may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has 

been imposed.’” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819 (2010) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)). But an exception lies “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a 

term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by 

the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In that event the sentencing court 

“may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in [18 

U.S.C. §] 3553(a).” Id. Any reduction under § 3582(c)(2) must, however, be “consistent 

with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. The 

applicable policy statement is found at USSG § 1B1.10, “Reduction in Term of 

Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement).” See Dillon, 

560 U.S. at 827 (“§ 3582(c)(2) requires the court to follow the Commission’s instructions 

in § 1B1.10 to determine the prisoner’s eligibility for a sentence modification.”). Unless 

the defendant originally received a guideline-range reduction for providing substantial 

Appellate Case: 15-3151 Document: 01019594559 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 2 
3 

assistance to authorities, see USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B)—which Defendant did not—that 

policy statement does not authorize a reduction if the defendant’s existing sentence is 

lower than the low end of the guideline range computed under the amendment. See id.

§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment 

... to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”). Because 

Defendant’s existing sentence was 240 months and his amended range was 262–327 

months, he was not eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). The district court 

properly dismissed his motion. 

Defendant claims that the district court erred in denying a reduction without 

considering any of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). And he complains that 

the document construed by the court as a motion under § 3582(c) was in fact merely a 

letter asking how to prepare a motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782, 

so the court’s misconstruction denied him the opportunity to present a more complete 

§ 3582(c) motion addressing his entitlement to a reduction under the § 3553(a) factors. 

For his contention that the district court was required to address the § 3553(a) factors, 

Defendant relies on United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2013). But he 

misreads that decision. In Trujillo the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant was eligible 

for a reduction and then ordered the district court to address the § 3553(a) factors in 

considering whether to grant one. See id. at 1006–11. Here, Defendant was not eligible, 

so the district court correctly did not address the § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon, 560 U.S. 

at 827. And because there was no need to address the § 3553(a) factors, any 

misconstruction of Defendant’s letter that denied him the opportunity to discuss them was 

Appellate Case: 15-3151 Document: 01019594559 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 3 
4 

harmless error. See United States v. Montgomery, 439 F.3d 1260, 1263 (10th Cir. 2006) 

(“Harmless error is that which did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence 

imposed.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion under § 3582(c)(2). 

Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

Entered for the Court 

Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-3151 Document: 01019594559 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 4