Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10492/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10492-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Moises Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10492

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MOISES LOPEZ, also known as Moy,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-30-2

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Moises Lopez, federal prisoner # 32182-177, was 

convicted in 2006 of possession with the intent to distribute more than 50 

grams of methamphetamine. He was sentenced within the advisory guidelines 

sentencing range to 292 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Lopez challenges 

the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in 

his sentence in light of Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

 

* 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

October 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10492 Document: 00513737001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2016
No. 16-10492

2

Lopez argues that Amendment 782 generally reduces a defendant’s base 

offense level (BOL) by two levels, “at a minimum,” and that the district court’s 

determination that his BOL remained 38 must have been the result of some 

mathematical error. He also challenges the district court’s basing its sentence

on his being responsible for more than 13 kilograms of methamphetamine “ice” 

when he pleaded guilty only to an offense involving more than 50 grams of 

methamphetamine and stipulated to being involved with only 455 grams of 

methamphetamine.

The allegations in the indictment and Lopez’s admissions are pertinent 

only as to his statutory sentencing exposure. See Alleyne v. United States, 133 

S. Ct. 2151, 2163 (2013); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

Lopez’s contention that the district court erred in determining drug type and 

quantity for purposes of calculating his BOL prior to his original sentencing is 

not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Hernandez, 

645 F.3d 709, 711-12 (5th Cir. 2011).

The district court correctly followed the instruction of 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) and substituted the amended version of 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) for the prior version of § 2D1.1(c). It explained that, even 

under the amended version of § 2D1.1(c)(1), an offense involving more than 4.5 

kilograms of methamphetamine “ice” calls for a BOL of 38. It further explained 

that because Amendment 782 did not have the effect of lowering Lopez’s BOL, 

he was not entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2). Lopez has failed to show that 

the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. 

United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. 

Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10492 Document: 00513737001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2016