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 district 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 methamphetamine 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 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

January 10, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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

2

original sentencing. Pulido explains that, had the 5.96 kilogram 

methamphetamine 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 the 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 clear 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 4.648 kilograms of actual methamphetamine for 

which Pulido was held accountable 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 

likewise 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 discretion in concluding that 

Pulido was not eligible for any sentence modification. See id. at 810-11; see, 

e.g., United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (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, which exceeded the 

threshold for the highest base offense level even after Amendment 782). 

 Case: 16-40572 Document: 00513828100 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2017
No. 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 his original sentence. 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 quantity 

attributed to him, and his efforts to relitigate the drug quantity determination 

“are not cognizable at this stage.” See id. The district court’s judgment denying 

Pulido’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction is AFFIRMED. 

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