Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-11530/USCOURTS-ca11-24-11530-0/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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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. 24-11530

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

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

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

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-11530 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 24-11530

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and ABUDU, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Frank Ballesteros appeals pro se the denial of his motion for 

a sentence reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We affirm.

In 2012, a jury convicted Ballesteros of conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute oxycodone and oxymorphone, 21 U.S.C. 

§ 846, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349, 

and possession with intent to distribute oxycodone and oxymorphone, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Ballesteros’s presentence investigation report stated that he was paid to prescribe pain medication 

fraudulently to recruited Medicare beneficiaries who then sold the 

drugs to his codefendants for drug trafficking. He wrote 6,667 

fraudulent prescriptions for oxycodone and oxymorphone with a 

total loss of $2,229,155. The report described his 1993 conviction, 

for which he received no criminal history points, for conspiracy to 

defraud the United States by signing prescriptions and billing for 

patients he never saw. The district court calculated a guideline 

range of 292 to 365 months of imprisonment and sentenced him to 

365 months of imprisonment. In 2015, the district court reduced his 

sentence to 293 months of imprisonment under section 3582(c)(2). 

In 2023, Ballesteros moved pro se for a sentence reduction 

under section 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 821 of the Sentencing Guidelines because he had zero criminal history points and 

none of the aggravating factors outlined in the amendment. See 

USCA11 Case: 24-11530 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 2 of 4
24-11530 Opinion of the Court 3

United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Supp. App. C, 

amend. 821 (Nov. 2023). He described his post-conviction employment and conduct as well as his family ties. The government 

agreed that the amendment applied to him but opposed his motion 

based on the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

The district court denied his motion for a sentence reduction. It concluded that Amendment 821 applied to Ballesteros and 

that his amended guideline range was 188 to 235 months of imprisonment. But it declined to grant Ballesteros a sentence reduction 

based on the statutory sentencing factors, including the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, his history and characteristics, and the 

need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense. It 

found that the offense was serious because it involved the misappropriation of Medicare funds and contributed to the opioid epidemic and that Ballesteros’s criminal history was underrepresented 

because it did not include his prior offense regarding conspiracy to 

commit healthcare fraud.

We review de novo legal conclusions about the authority to 

grant a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). United States v. 

Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233, 1238 (11th Cir. 2017). If section 

3582(c)(2) applies, we review the denial of a sentence reduction for 

abuse of discretion. Id. A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard or follows improper procedures. 

United States v. Jordan, 582 F.3d 1239, 1249 (11th Cir. 2009). 

A district court may modify a term of imprisonment if the 

defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that has since

USCA11 Case: 24-11530 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 24-11530

been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2). The district court must conduct a two-step analysis 

by recalculating the range under the amended guidelines and deciding whether to reduce the sentence based on the statutory sentencing factors and public safety. United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 

1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). The district court is not required to 

consider a defendant’s post-conviction conduct. Caraballo-Martinez, 

866 F.3d at 1249. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ballesteros’s motion to reduce his sentence. The district court conducted the two-step process by calculating his new guideline range 

and considering the statutory sentencing factors. See Williams, 557 

F.3d at 1256. Its statement regarding the opioid epidemic shows it 

took public safety into account, see id., and it was not required to 

consider his post-conviction conduct, see Caraballo-Martinez, 866 

F.3d at 1249. And the district court reasonably concluded that the 

statutory sentencing factors weighed against a sentence reduction 

because Ballesteros’s offense involved a $2.2 million Medicare 

fraud and large quantities of opioids, following a prior conviction 

for healthcare fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

We AFFIRM the denial of Ballesteros’s motion for a sentence reduction.

USCA11 Case: 24-11530 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 4 of 4