IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20040

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

YURI DAVID MELENDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-293-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Yuri David Melendez (Melendez), federal prisoner # 43548-279, appeals 

the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence 

reduction based upon retroactive Amendment 782 to the Sentencing 

Guidelines. Melendez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to export stolen motor 

vehicles and unlawfully transport stolen motor vehicles in foreign commerce 

and attempting to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of 

 

* 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

September 23, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20040 Document: 00513204729 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2015
No. 15-20040

2

cocaine. The district court granted the Government’s motion for a downward 

departure for providing substantial assistance, and it sentenced Melendez to 

108 months of imprisonment on the cocaine count and the statutory maximum 

sentence of 60 months of imprisonment on the stolen vehicles count, the 

sentences to be served concurrently.

Melendez argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying 

his § 3582(c)(2) motion without considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors. He maintains that his guidelines sentence range was based upon a 

sentencing range that was lowered by Amendment 782 because the modified 

Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, was considered in his guidelines range 

calculation. He maintains that the cocaine count, which was assessed under 

§ 2D1.1, clearly affected his guidelines range calculation because without the 

cocaine count his statutory maximum sentence would have been 60 months of 

imprisonment. The Government argues that Melendez’s appeal is barred by 

the appeal waiver in his plea agreement and that Melendez’s appeal is without 

merit.

As the Government acknowledges, a standard appeal waiver, such as 

Melendez’s, does not bar a defendant from filing a § 3582(c)(2) motion or an 

appeal from the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States v. Cooley, 590 

F.3d 293, 296-97 (5th Cir. 2009). The Government contends that Melendez’s 

appeal is barred by the appeal waiver because he is ineligible for relief under 

§ 3582(c)(2), making his appeal some other type of challenge to his sentence. 

Melendez, however, sought only relief under § 3582(c)(2) in the district court 

and seeks only relief under § 3582(c)(2) in this court. Just because an appeal 

from the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion is unmeritorious does not make the 

appeal barred by a standard appeal waiver. See Cooley, 590 F.3d at 296-298. 

 Case: 15-20040 Document: 00513204729 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2015
No. 15-20040

3

Accordingly, Melendez’s appeal waiver does not bar the present appeal. See 

id.

Melendez’s guidelines sentence range was based upon the adjusted total 

offense level of the stolen vehicles count, and it was not modified by the 

adjusted total offense level of the cocaine count because the adjusted total 

offense level of the cocaine count was 10 levels lower than the adjusted total 

offense level of the stolen vehicles count. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4. Thus, applying 

Amendment 782 to Melendez’s case does not change Melendez’s guidelines 

sentence range. As Amendment 782 did “not have the effect of lowering 

[Melendez’s] applicable guideline range,” Melendez was not eligible for a 

sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), and the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by denying Melendez’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); see United States v. Bowman, 632 F.3d 906, 910-11 (5th Cir. 

2011).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20040 Document: 00513204729 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/23/2015