Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro CAMACHO-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-20
Citations: 702 F. App'x 182
Docket Number: No. 17-6638
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro CAMACHO-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 702
Pages: 182–182

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro CAMACHO-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6638
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 16, 2017
Decided: November 20, 2017
Pedro Camacho-Castillo, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Pedro Camacho-Castillo appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3682(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
In this case the district court correctly found that Amendment 782 would not lower Camacho-Castillo's Guidelines range because Camacho-Castillo's Guidelines range was calculated using the 2014 Guidelines, which included the changes to the Drug Quantity Table made by Amendment 782. Moreover, the district court sentenced Camacho-Castillo pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, and the record makes clear that the sentence was not based on the Guidelines range. See United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271, 276-77 (4th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, No. 17-142, — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 252, — L.Ed.2d -, 2017 WL 3219499 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2017). Accordingly, Camacho-Castillo is not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782, and we affirm the district court's denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED