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 orde r reducing his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 1 Because the district court lacked authority to redu ce Saenz’s sentence below the minimum of the amende d Guidelines range, we affirm. In 2006, a jury convicted Saenz of va rious crimes arisi ng from his possession and distribution of methamphetamine. Sa enz’s presentence investigation report

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Ci r. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, howev er, for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 We liberally construe Saenz’s pro se f ilings, 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 Court2 reflected a total offense leve l of 38 and a criminal histor y category of I, producing a Guidelines range of 235 to 29 3 months in prison. Citing th e nature and circumstances of the offense, Saenz’s history and char acteristics, and the n ecessity of avoiding unwarranted sentencing dispar ities among defendants, the district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 192 months. The Sentencing Commission subsequen tly issued Amendment 782, which lowered by two levels most of the base offense levels provide d 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 Guidelin es range of 188 to 235 months in prison. The court thus granted Saenz’s motion, re ducing 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 se ntence was 43 months below the minimum of his original Guidelin es 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. Th e district court denied Saenz’s motion, explaining that Saenz “presented no basis fo r concluding that the relatively lenient sentence warrant[ed] further reduction.” R. vol. 1, 556.3 Saenz appeals, arguing the district cour t 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 defenda nt originally r eceived 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 in itially receive a redu ction pursuant to a government motion to reflect his substantial assistance to authorities, the district court lacked authority to fu rther reduce Saenz’s sentence. See United States v. Kurtz , ––– F.3d ––––, ––––, 2016 WL 1212066, at *3-4 (10t h Cir. Mar. 29, 2016) (explaining district court lack ed statutory authority to re duce defendant’s sentence to term less than the minimum of the ame nded Guidelines range because government didn’t file motion to reduce sentence based on defendant’s substa ntial 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