Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis BERNY-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-01
Citations: 697 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 17-10209 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis BERNY-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 315–316

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis BERNY-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-10209 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed September 1, 2017
Brian W. McKay, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Luis Berny-Estrada, Pro Se
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Luis Berny-Estrada, federal prisoner # 53849-177, was convicted of illegal reentry and was sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 802. He also argues that his original guidelines range was incorrectly calculated.
Amendment 802 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Supp. to App. C, Amendment 802, pp. 146-59 (2016); § 1B1.10(d). Accordingly, the district court was not authorized to reduce Berny-Estrada's sentence pursuant to Amendment 802, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Berny-Estrada's challenges to the correctness of his original sentence are not cognizable under § 3582(c)(2). See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.