Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime Homero GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-21
Citations: 691 F. App'x 179
Docket Number: No. 16-41150 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime Homero GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 179–180

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime Homero GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-41150 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed June 21, 2017
Amy Howell Alaniz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jaime Homero Guerrero, Pro Se
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jaime Guerrero, federal prisoner # 46020-379, filed in the district court a pro se motion, purportedly under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting that Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines demonstrated that the district court erred by not applying a four-level reduction for his minor role in the offense. Guerrero, again pro se, appeals the district court's construction of that motion as a motion for sentence reduction via 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
In his direct appeal, Guerrero did not challenge the denial of a minor-role reduction. See United States v. Guerrero, 600 Fed.Appx. 936 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Claims of misapplication of the guidelines are not cognizable under § 2255. United States v. Williamson, 183 F.3d 458, 462 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992). In certain circumstances, the district court may reduce a sentence based on an amendment. See § 3582(c)(2). In light of the relief Guerrero sought and the unavailability of relief under § 2255, the court did not err in construing the motion as a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-82, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003).
We review de novo whether the district court had authority to reduce the sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010). Section 3582(c)(2) applies only to retroactive guideline amendments that are listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), p.s. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). As Guerrero concedes, Amendment 794 is not listed there, so the court did not err in denying a reduction. See Jones, 596 F.3d at 276.
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.