### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40572 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ARNOLDO HAREDIA PULIDO, also known as “Juanito” , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CR

- 161

- 2

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Arnoldo Haredia Pulido appeals the di strict court’s denial of his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a reduction of his 168

- month sentence for conspiring to possess with the intent to manufacture or distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphe tamine or 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. Pulido argues that the district court erred by relying upon the miscalculated quantity of drugs attributed to him at his

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 10, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40572 Document: 00513828100 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2017No. 16

- 40572

2 original sentencing. Pulido explain s that, had the 5.96 kilogram methamphetamin e mixture in question been allowed to dry completely, the total weight would have been five percent lower and the amount of actual methamphetamine would have been only 4.4163 kilograms, making him eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to th e U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) drug quantity table. This court reviews the district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion, its interpretation of the sentencing guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for cle ar error. United States v. Benitez , 822 F.3d 807, 810

- 11 (5th Cir. 2016). “[A] defendant is not eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) if a qualifying amendment ‘does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.’” Id. at
810 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B))

. In the instant case, the 4.6 4 8 kilograms of actual methamphetamine fo r which Pulido was held accou ntable trigger the highest base offense level of 38 under the drug quantity table as revised by Amendment 782. See § 2D1.1(c)(1) (applying a base offense level of 38 to quantities of actual methamphetamine of 4.5 kilograms or more). Since Pulido’s original base offense level was
li kewise 38 , the application of Amendment 782 does not have the effect of lowering Pulido’s original advisory guideline range. See Benitez , 822 F.3d at 810. The district court thus did not abuse its discre tion in concluding that Pulido wa s not eligible for any sent ence modification. See id. at 810

- 11; see, e.g., United States v. Hernandez , 645 F.3d 709, 71 2 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying § 3582(c)(2) motion where it had adopted PSR’s drug quantity calculation, w hich exceeded the threshold for the highest base offense level even after A mendment 782). Case: 16-40572 Document: 00513828100 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2017No. 16

- 40572

3 Moreover , this § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not the appropriate vehicle for Pulido to relitigate a sentencing issue or raise a general challenge to the propriety of hi s original sen tence. See id. at 712 (stating that a modification proceeding “is not the forum for a collateral attack on a sentence long since imposed”). Pulido did not pursue a direct appeal challenging the drug quant ity attributed to him , and his effor ts to relitigate the drug quantity determination “are not cognizable at this s tage.” See id

. The district court’s judgment denying Pulido’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sente nce reduction is AFFIRMED

. Case: 16-40572 Document: 00513828100 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/10/2017