UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JUAN CARLOS ANGULO-LOPEZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 18-6080 

(D.C. No. 5:91-CR-00220-D-6) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This appeal involves limitations on the district court’s jurisdiction to 

reduce a sentence when the U.S. Sentencing Commission reduces the 

pertinent base offense level. 

* * * 

 * Mr. Angulo-Lopez does not request oral argument, and it would not 

materially aid our consideration of the appeal. We therefore have decided 

the appeal based on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 

34.1(G). 

 This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except 

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 

But our order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 4, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

This jurisdictional issue grew out of Mr. Juan Carlos Angulo-Lopez’s 

conviction on eleven counts of drug trafficking involving cocaine base. At 

sentencing, the district court 

 found that Mr. Angulo-Lopez’s total offense level under the 

federal sentencing guidelines was 48 and 

 imposed concurrent sentences of 480 months, 240 months, 60 

months, and life imprisonment. 

But after the sentencing, the U.S. Sentencing Commission adopted 

Amendment 782, which “reduced the base offense levels assigned to 

certain drug offenses by two levels.” United States v. Green, 886 F.3d 

1300, 1302 (10th Cir. 2018). Given this reduction in base offense levels, 

Mr. Angulo-Lopez moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(2).1

 

The district court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, 

reasoning that the change in the sentencing guidelines would not have 

affected Mr. Angulo-Lopez’s sentence. Mr. Angulo-Lopez appeals, and we 

affirm. 

To decide this appeal, we must determine whether Amendment 782 

would have affected Mr. Angulo-Lopez’s guideline range. E.g., United 

States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1238–39 (10th Cir. 2008). On this issue, 

 1

 Section 3582(c)(2) provides that a court may modify a sentence when 

the sentence is “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been 

lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 
3 

we engage in de novo review. United States v. Rhodes, 549 F.3d 833, 837 

(10th Cir. 2008). 

In calculating the guideline range for the initial sentence, the district 

court started with a base offense level of 42 and enhanced this by six 

levels, resulting in a total offense level of 48.2

 With the reduction in base 

offense levels from Amendment 782, Mr. Angulo-Lopez’s base offense 

level would have decreased from 42 to 38. With the same enhancements 

applied at the initial sentencing, the total offense level would have dipped 

from 48 to 44. But with Mr. Angulo-Lopez’s criminal history category of 

II, the guideline sentence would have remained life imprisonment. In these 

circumstances, Mr. Angulo-Lopez could not obtain a sentence reduction 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (“A reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment 

is not consistent with the policy statement and therefore is not authorized 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if . . . an amendment . . . does not have the 

effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.”); see also 

United States v. McGee, 615 F.3d 1287, 1292 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he 

Sentencing Commission’s policy statements in § 1B1.10 are binding on 

 2

 In his reply brief, Mr. Angulo-Lopez stated that the sentencing court 

enhanced his base offense level from 38 to 44. Appellant’s Reply Br. at 7. 

This statement is incorrect based on the sentencing record. In his opening 

brief, Mr. Angulo-Lopez had acknowledged that the sentencing court 

enhanced his base offense level from 42 to 48. Appellant’s Pro Se Resp. 

Br. at 4, 7. 
4 

district courts and limit their authority to grant motions for reduction of 

sentences.”). 

Mr. Angulo-Lopez argues that the guidelines are no longer binding 

on the district court in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 

(2005). But the Supreme Court later concluded that “proceedings under 

[§ 3582(c)(2)] do not implicate the interests identified in Booker.” Dillon 

v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 828 (2010). This conclusion precludes 

jurisdiction over Mr. Angulo-Lopez’s motion. See United States v. White, 

765 F.3d 1240, 1250 (10th Cir. 2014). 

* * * 

Because Amendment 782 did not affect Mr. Angulo-Lopez’s 

guideline range, the court lacked jurisdiction under § 3582(c)(2) to modify 

the sentence. The district court thus properly dismissed Mr. AnguloLopez’s motion for lack of jurisdiction, and we affirm the dismissal. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Robert E. Bacharach 

 Circuit Judge