UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

SIGIFREDO SAENZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-3274 

(D.C. No. 6:05-CR-10245-JTM-1) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, HOLMES, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Appearing pro se, Sigifredo Saenz appeals the district court’s denial of his 

motion to reconsider the court’s order reducing his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2).1

 Because the district court lacked authority to reduce Saenz’s sentence 

below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range, we affirm. 

In 2006, a jury convicted Saenz of various crimes arising from his possession 

and distribution of methamphetamine. Saenz’s presentence investigation report 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 

10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 We liberally construe Saenz’s pro se filings, but it’s not our role to act as his 

advocate. James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

May 10, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

reflected a total offense level of 38 and a criminal history category of I, producing a 

Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months in prison. Citing the nature and circumstances 

of the offense, Saenz’s history and characteristics, and the necessity of avoiding 

unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants, the district court imposed a 

below-Guidelines sentence of 192 months. 

The Sentencing Commission subsequently issued Amendment 782, which 

lowered by two levels most of the base offense levels provided in the Guidelines’ 

Drug Quantity Table. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 782. Saenz filed a motion for 

sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), which authorizes a district court to reduce a 

defendant’s sentence if it was “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently 

been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 

In light of Amendment 782, the district court calculated an amended offense 

level of 36, resulting in an amended Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months in prison. 

The court thus granted Saenz’s motion, reducing his original 192-month sentence to 

188 months—the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. Saenz requested 

reconsideration, arguing that because his original 192-month sentence was 43 months 

below the minimum of his original Guidelines range, the district court should reduce 

his amended sentence to 43 months below the minimum of his amended Guidelines 

range, resulting in a 145-month sentence. The district court denied Saenz’s motion, 

explaining that Saenz “presented no basis for concluding that the relatively lenient 

sentence warrant[ed] further reduction.” R. vol. 1, 556. 
3 

Saenz appeals, arguing the district court should have reduced his sentence to 

145 months. But a district court “shall not reduce the defendant’s term of 

imprisonment” under § 3582(c)(2) “to a term that is less than the minimum of the 

amended guideline range” unless the defendant originally received a sentence 

reduction “pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial 

assistance to authorities.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)-(B). Here, the district court 

imposed an amended sentence of 188 months—the minimum of the amended 

guideline range. And because Saenz didn’t initially receive a reduction pursuant to a 

government motion to reflect his substantial assistance to authorities, the district 

court lacked authority to further reduce Saenz’s sentence. See United States v. Kurtz, 

––– F.3d ––––, ––––, 2016 WL 1212066, at *3-4 (10th Cir. Mar. 29, 2016) 

(explaining district court lacked statutory authority to reduce defendant’s sentence to 

term less than the minimum of the amended Guidelines range because government 

didn’t file motion to reduce sentence based on defendant’s substantial assistance to 

authorities). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Saenz’s motion to 

reconsider his reduced sentence. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge