Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41460/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41460-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Ignacio Salinas-Landaverde
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41460

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff–Appellee, 

versus 

JOSE IGNACIO SALINAS-LANDAVERDE, 

Defendant–Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:14-CR-303-1 

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Jose Salinas-Landaverde, federal prisoner # 65352-379, appeals, 

 

* 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 7, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41460 Document: 00513900670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2017
No. 15-41460

2 

complaining of the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction

per 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He sought the reduction under Amendment 782 of 

the Sentencing Guidelines, effective November 1, 2014. See U.S.S.G. App. C, 

Amend. 788. The court denied the motion because Salinas-Landaverde was 

sentenced after the effective date. 

Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a sentence 

“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” if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy 

statements issued by the Commission. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 

817, 824–26 (2010). A defendant is eligible for a reduction if the range originally applicable to him was lowered by an amendment. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10(a)(1), p.s. (2014). Because Salinas-Landaverde was afforded the full 

benefit of Amendment 782, his sentencing range was not lowered as a result of

it, and he was not eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See Dillon, 

560 U.S. at 824–26. 

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Salinas-Landaverde’s motion 

for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

 Case: 15-41460 Document: 00513900670 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2017