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

No. 18

- 20081 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
PEDRO MORENO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95

- CR

- 142

- 3

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
In 2001 , Pedro Moreno, federal prisoner # 71498

- 079, was convicted of conspiring to launder monetary instruments and of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) to sell marihuana , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(g),(h) and 21 U.S.C. § 848 . He was sentenced to life impri sonment for the CCE offense , and 240 months’ imprisonment on the conspiracy conviction , to run concurrently

. Proceeding pro se , Moreno contests:

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 12, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Cle rk Case: 18-20081 Document: 00514757153 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2018No. 18

- 20081

2 the d ismissal, as moot, of his successive motion for a sentence reduction , pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2 ) ; and the denial of his post

- judgment request to amend his successive § 3582(c)(2) motion. As Moreno asserts , the district court had jurisdiction to consider his successive § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Calton , 900 F.3d 70 6, 711 (5th Cir. 20 18). Our court has jurisdiction to consider Moreno’s appeal , see id.
at 71 2

– 1 3, and our jurisdiction is unaffected by Moreno’s failure to timely notice his appeal from the dismissal of his successive § 3582(c) (2) motion. See United States v. Martinez , 49 6 F.3d 387, 388

– 89 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding time limit for noticing appeal is not jurisdictional in criminal cases and may be waived)

. Because there are no jurisdictional or procedural bars to our consideration of Moreno’s appeal from the denial of § 3582 (c)(2) relief, the merits of his motion for a sentence reduction are considered

. See Calton , 900 F.3d at 714. Moreno contends he was eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 782 (amending drug

- quantity table in Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1(c) and lowering most drug

- related base

- offenses by two levels). Generally, review of the denial of a sentence r eduction under § 3582(c)(2) is for abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson , 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted)

. However, as relevant here, review of whether defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) is de novo

. United States v. Jones , 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted)

. S ection 3582(c)(2) provides defendant’s sentence may be modified if he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a Guidelines sentencing range subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Sect ion 3582(c)(2) applies only to G uideline amendments made retroactive by the Sentencing Case: 18-20081 Document: 00514757153 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2018No. 18

- 20081

3 Commission. Se e Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). Amendment 782 is such a retroactive amendment. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d).
For his original sentence , Moreno was held accountabl e for 122,081 kilograms of marih uana , rendering a total offense level of 46

. An offense level exceeding 43 , however, is treated as one of 43. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A, cmt.
n. 2

. Amendment 782 effectively lowered most drug

- related base

- offense levels by two units; but, given the drug quantity for which Moreno was held
accounta ble, Amendment 782 did not reduce his offense level and did not make
him eligible for a sentence reduction, as his G uidelines range is still life imprisonment

. See United States v. Bowman , 632 F.3d 906 , 910

– 11 (5th Cir. 2011) . Even if, as Moreno asse r ts, the court had issued a ruling lowering his accountable drug quantity to 8 9,078.6 kilograms of marih uana , that would have no effect on his eligibility for a sentence reduction

. See id. Finally , Moreno’s contention he is eligible for a sentence reduction due to errors in the determination of his offense level under Guideline § 2D1.5 fails because issues relate d to original sentencing determinations may not be relitigated in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding ; and such motion s cannot be used to challenge the appropriateness of the original sentence. See United States v.
Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted) ; United States v. Whitebird , 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995). AFFIRMED. Case: 18-20081 Document: 00514757153 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/12/2018