Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10344/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10344-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank J. Ballesteros
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10344

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20698-RNS-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

FRANK J. BALLESTEROS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(June 9, 2015)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-10344 Date Filed: 06/09/2015 Page: 1 of 5
2

Frank Ballesteros appeals pro se his sentence of imprisonment for 293 

months imposed after the district court reduced Ballesteros’s original sentence of 

imprisonment of 365 months for his drug crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Ballesteros argues that his amended sentence is unreasonable and that he was 

entitled to the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

In 2012, Ballesteros was convicted of conspiring to possess with intent to 

distribute oxycodone and oxymorphone, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 

846, two counts of possessing with intent to distribute oxycodone and 

oxymorphone, id. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C); 18 U.S.C. § 2, and conspiring to 

defraud Medicare, id. § 1349. Ballesteros, a physician, wrote more than 6,000 

prescriptions for oxycodone and oxymorphone as part of a conspiracy to distribute 

pain medicine obtained from Medicare-eligible patients and relocated his medical 

practice five times to elude law enforcement. The district court sentenced 

Ballesteros at the high end of his advisory guideline range of 292 to 365 months of 

imprisonment. 

Ballesteros moved for a reduction of his sentence based on Amendment 782 

to the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Ballesteros requested a twolevel reduction of his offense level and credit for “his educational, vocational, 

religious . . . and institutional progress.” Ballesteros also requested that the district 

court appoint counsel and conduct an evidentiary hearing.

USCA11 Case: 15-10344 Date Filed: 06/09/2015 Page: 2 of 5
3

“We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the 

scope of its authority” to reduce a sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. 

United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th Cir. 2008). The decision 

whether to grant or deny a motion to reduce is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id.

at 1368 n.1. We also review for an abuse of discretion the denial of requests for 

appointed counsel and for an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Webb, 565 

F.3d 789, 793 (11th Cir. 2009) (appointment of counsel); United States v. Hill, 643 

F.3d 807, 874 (11th Cir. 2011) (evidentiary hearing).

The district court did not err in reducing Ballesteros’s sentence. Based on the 

amended drug table, the district court correctly assigned Ballesteros an offense 

level of 38, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2), which resulted in an amended sentencing 

range between 235 and 293 months of imprisonment, id. Ch. 5, Pt. A. The district 

court considered “the Amendment, [Ballesteros’s] motion and the response, and 

the Section 3553(a) factors,” and determined that “a sentence at the high end of 

[Ballesteros’s amended] guideline [range] [was] appropriate.” See 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a); United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). Ballesteros’s 

offense involved at least 5,000 grams of oxycodone and 40 grams of 

oxymorphone. And Ballesteros had a prior conviction for Medicare fraud, served a 

term of probation, and received his “medical license back,” but he squandered that 

“new lease on life to go back into the practice of medicine” by participating in a 

USCA11 Case: 15-10344 Date Filed: 06/09/2015 Page: 3 of 5
4

conspiracy to distribute prescription drugs. Based on this record, the district court 

reasonably decided to sentence Ballesteros to 293 months of imprisonment.

Ballesteros challenges his sentence on three grounds, all of which lack merit. 

First, Ballesteros contests the amount of drugs attributed to him, but when 

considering a reduction of sentence “all original sentencing determinations remain 

unchanged,” Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781. Second, Ballesteros argues for a further 

reduction based on his rehabilitation, but the district court was not obligated to 

consider Ballesteros’s post-sentencing conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. 

n.1(B)(iii); United States v. Smith, 568 F.3d 923, 927 (11th Cir. 2009). Third, 

Ballesteros argues that the district court should have considered his arguments that 

he was denied due process and that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual 

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but the district court lacked 

“jurisdiction to consider [Ballesteros’s] extraneous resentencing issues” under 

section 3582(c)(2). Bravo, 203 F.3d at 782.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Ballesteros’s 

motions for appointed counsel and for an evidentiary hearing. Ballesteros was not 

entitled to appointed counsel in seeking a reduction of his sentence. See Webb, 565 

F.3d at 794–95. And the district court was not required to conduct an evidentiary 

hearing when no “factor important to the sentencing determination [was]

USCA11 Case: 15-10344 Date Filed: 06/09/2015 Page: 4 of 5
5

reasonably in dispute.” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3. The government conceded that 

Amendment 782 applied to Ballesteros.

We AFFIRM Ballesteros’s amended sentence.

USCA11 Case: 15-10344 Date Filed: 06/09/2015 Page: 5 of 5