Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11719/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11719-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wilson Antonio Chaverra Gonzalez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11719

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20879-FAM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILSON ANTONIO CHAVERRA GONZALEZ, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 26, 2016)

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-11719 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 1 of 3
2

Wilson Antonio Chaverra Gonzalez appeals pro se the denial of his motion 

to reduce his sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c)(2), under Amendment 782 of the 

Sentencing Guidelines. Gonzalez argues that the district court erroneously 

determined that it lacked the authority to reduce his sentence because his sentence 

had been reduced earlier based on a motion to reduce for substantial assistance

filed by the government, Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. He also argues that the district court 

abused its discretion because it failed to weigh the relevant sentencing factors, 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a), in denying his motion. We affirm.

We review a denial of a motion to reduce a sentence under section 3582(c)

de novo. United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2009). And we may 

affirm on any ground supported by the record. United States v. Acuna-Reyna, 677 

F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2012). 

A district court may reduce the sentence of a prisoner who was sentenced to 

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

Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Where an amendment does not 

lower a prisoner’s applicable guideline range, section 3582(c) affords the prisoner 

no relief. Id.; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

Although, as the government concedes, the district court erred when it

determined that it lacked the authority to reduce Gonzalez’s sentence because his 

sentence had been reduced earlier under Rule 35 for substantial assistance, see 

USCA11 Case: 15-11719 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 2 of 3
3

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), (c), we affirm the denial of Gonzalez’s motion 

because he is ineligible to have his sentence reduced under section 3582(c). 

Gonzalez was held accountable at sentencing for 911 kilograms of cocaine, which 

still results in a base offense level of 38. Amendment 782 did not lower his 

guideline range. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-11719 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 3 of 3