Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-18
Citations: 699 F. App'x 322
Docket Number: No. 16-41581 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 322–323

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-41581 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed October 18, 2017
Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Francisco Madrigal, Pro Se
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Madrigal pleaded guilty of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marihuana. His advisory guideline range was 120 months of imprisonment, which was the statutory minimum. The district court departed downward and imposed a term of 90 months. Madrigal challenges the denial of. his motion for a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Here, however, the district court lacked authority to reduce Madrigal's sentence because Madrigal's advisory guideline range was governed by the statutory minimum. See United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 578-81 (5th Cir. 2010); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(vii); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a), p.s. & comment. (n.l(A)). Because Madrigal was not eligible for a reduction, the court was not authorized to grant him one.
The judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.