Court Opinion

ID: 9895337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 19:00:46.386633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:08.357292
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11545    Document: 15-1     Date Filed: 11/06/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11545
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JUAN ALBERTO ORTIZ-LOPEZ,
       a.k.a. Chamale,
       a.k.a. Juanito,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 23-11545      Document: 15-1      Date Filed: 11/06/2023     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11545

                   D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cr-00048-VMC-AAS-1
                          ____________________

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Juan Alberto Ortiz-Lopez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro
       se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence
       reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), pursuant to Amendment
       782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the district court
       erred in finding him ineligible for a sentence reduction and abused
       its discretion in denying him said reduction. Rather than file a re-
       sponse brief, the government moves for summary affirmance, ar-
       guing that the law-of-the-case doctrine precluded Ortiz-Lopez
       from obtaining the requested reduction. The government also ar-
       gues that Ortiz-Lopez’s appeal fails on the merits, as the district
       court correctly found that Ortiz-Lopez was not eligible for a sen-
       tence reduction in any event, pursuant to Amendment 782.
               Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
       the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
       sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
       or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat-
       ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out-
       come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap-
       peal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
       1161-62 (5th Cir. 1969).
USCA11 Case: 23-11545      Document: 15-1      Date Filed: 11/06/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       23-11545               Opinion of the Court                          3

               Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, an appellant who had
       the opportunity to appeal the district court’s decision and did not
       appeal that decision is barred from relitigating that decision. United
       States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir. 1997). This
       applies to both explicit rulings, but also as to issues decided neces-
       sarily by implication. See United States v. Tamayo, 80 F.3d 1514, 1520
       (11th Cir. 1996). In Escobar-Urrego, the Court applied the law-of-the-
       case doctrine in a § 3582(c)(2) appeal, because the district court held
       the defendant accountable for 2,036 grams of cocaine at sentencing,
       and the defendant had the opportunity to appeal that finding but
       chose not to. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d at 1560-61.
              There are three narrow exceptions to the law-of-the-case
       doctrine. A court is not bound by a prior ruling if (1) new evidence
       is presented, (2) there is an intervening change in the controlling
       law, or (3) the prior ruling, “if implemented, would cause manifest
       injustice because it is clearly erroneous.” Id. at 1561.
               We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions
       about the scope of its authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United
       States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012). If § 3582(c)(2)
       applies, we review the district court’s decision to grant or deny a
       sentence reduction only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Car-
       aballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233, 1238 (11th Cir. 2017). An abuse of
       discretion arises if the district court “applies an incorrect legal
       standard, follows improper procedures in making the determina-
       tion, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” United
USCA11 Case: 23-11545     Document: 15-1      Date Filed: 11/06/2023    Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                23-11545

       States v. Jordan, 582 F.3d 1239, 1249 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation
       marks omitted).
              A district court may modify a defendant’s term of imprison-
       ment if the defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range
       that has since been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18
       U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). “This authority is limited to those guideline
       amendments listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) that have the effect of
       lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” United States
       v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks
       omitted).
               Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines altered the
       base offense levels applicable to certain drug offenses and is one of
       the listed guideline amendments that provide eligibility for relief
       under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782
       (2014); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). Under the Amendment, the base of-
       fense level of a defendant accountable for between 150 and 450 kil-
       ograms of cocaine was lowered to 36. U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend.
       782 (2014). However, under the Amendment, the base offense
       level of defendants accountable for more than 450 kilograms of co-
       caine remained a 38. Id.
              The district court did not err when it found that Ortiz-Lopez
       was not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782.
       Under the 2014 Guidelines Manual used to sentence Ortiz-Lopez,
       a base-offense level of 38 applied to controlled-substance offenses
       involving 150 kilograms or more of cocaine. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)
       (2015). Following Amendment 782, the amount of cocaine
USCA11 Case: 23-11545      Document: 15-1      Date Filed: 11/06/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       23-11545               Opinion of the Court                          5

       necessary to trigger a base-offense level of 38 increased to 450 kilo-
       grams or more. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) (2014). Thus, to show that
       Amendment 782 lowered his guideline range, Ortiz-Lopez had to
       prove that his offense conduct involved less than 450 kilograms of
       cocaine.
              In his first sentencing, Ortiz-Lopez did not object to the PSI’s
       determination that he was accountable for 36,287 kilograms of co-
       caine, the district court adopted this determination at sentencing.
       Therefore, when the district court decided Ortiz-Lopez’s present
       motion for a reduced sentence under § 3582(c), it was permitted to
       rely on this determination.
              Because Ortiz-Lopez was accountable for 36,287 kilograms
       of cocaine, significantly more than 450 kilograms, Amendment 782
       did not reduce his base offense level or the resulting guideline
       range. Therefore, the district court could not reduce his sentence
       under § 3582(c). United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir.
       2000).
              Because the district court did not err when it denied Ortiz-
       Lopez’s motion for a reduced sentence, the government’s position
       is correct as a matter of law, and we GRANT its motion for sum-
       mary affirmance. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.
              AFFIRMED.