Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06109/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06109-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis Alfredo Delgado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 26, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LUIS ALFREDO DELGADO,

 Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-6109

(D.C. No. 5:98-CR-00083-R-1)

(W. D. Oklahoma)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This appeal involves the denial of relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Under

this statute, a defendant can seek modification of a sentence based on a reduction

in the guideline range. Mr. Delgado invokes § 3582 based on the U.S. Sentencing

Commission’s adoption of Amendment 782, which increased the threshold

quantity required for a broad range of drug offenses. In light of the adoption of

* The parties have not requested oral argument, and the Court concludes that 

oral argument would not materially aid our consideration of the appeal. See Fed.

R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we have decided the appeal

based on the briefs.

Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under

the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Fed. R. App.

P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).

Appellate Case: 15-6109 Document: 01019512787 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 1 
Amendment 782, Mr. Delgado asked the district court to reduce his sentence. The

district court refused and Mr. Delgado appeals.

We affirm. As Mr. Delgado admits, Amendment 782 would not have

affected his guideline range. Before and after adoption of this amendment, the

guideline range would have been 292 to 365 months in prison. 

When the guideline range is not affected, the Sentencing Commission’s

policy statements prohibit the district court from reducing the sentence under

§ 3582(c). In light of these policy statements, the district court properly

disallowed a sentence reduction under § 3582(c). See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (“A reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not

consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if . . . [a]n amendment . . . does not have the effect of

lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.”); see also United States v.

Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir. 2008) (stating that because Amendment

706 would not have affected the defendant’s guideline range, a sentence reduction

under § 3582(c) was properly denied).

Mr. Delgado purports to rely on “the public policy and the purpose of

Amendment 782.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 4. But Mr. Delgado does not say

how Amendment 782’s public policy or purpose would support a sentence

reduction. The amendment, by its terms, does not affect Mr. Delgado’s sentence.

2

Appellate Case: 15-6109 Document: 01019512787 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 2 
We cannot disregard the actual language of the amendment based on our

perception of the drafters’ “public policy” or “purpose.” See United States v.

Riehl, 779 F.3d 776, 778 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (rejecting a defendant’s

argument for reversal based on the district court’s failure to consider the policy

reasons underlying Amendment 782).

Though Mr. Delgado couches his argument in terms of “public policy” and

“purpose,” he is actually arguing that the original sentence was unconstitutional

because the district court did not obtain jury findings on “relevant conduct.”

Appellant’s Opening Br. at 5. That argument involves the original sentence, not a

reduction in the guideline range under Amendment 782. 

Mr. Delgado did not present this argument to the district court in his

motion for a sentence reduction. As a result, Mr. Delgado’s argument is forfeited.

See United States v. Lamirand, 669 F.3d 1091, 1098-99 n.7 (10th Cir. 2012).

Ordinarily, we would apply the plain-error standard of review. See United States

v. Dryden, 563 F.3d 1168, 1170 (10th Cir. 2009). But Mr. Delgado has not argued

for plain error. As a result, we decline to consider Mr. Delgado’s argument. See

Lamirand, 669 F.3d at 1098-99 n.7.

3

Appellate Case: 15-6109 Document: 01019512787 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 3 
In these circumstances, we affirm the district court’s denial of relief under

§ 3582(c).

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach

Circuit Judge

4

Appellate Case: 15-6109 Document: 01019512787 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 4