Case: 12-12607 Date Filed: 08/13/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12607
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:00-cr-00027-TCB-JFK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JULIO SANTANA,
a.k.a. Eloy Cobrera,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 13, 2013)
Before HULL, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12607 Date Filed: 08/13/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Federal prisoner Julio Santana appeals from the district court’s denial of his
motion to reduce sentence, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and based on
Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced offense levels in
cases involving crack cocaine. Santana contends the district court erred in denying
his § 3582(c)(2) motion because, based upon the drug quantity calculations in the
PSI, Amendment 750 to the Guidelines would yield a lower Guidelines range.
After review,1 we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion. Although
a district court may modify a term of imprisonment that was based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, the
modification must be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The applicable policy
statements, found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, provide that “[a] reduction in the
defendant’s term of imprisonment . . . is not authorized under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) if . . . [the] amendment . . . does not have the effect of lowering the
defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); see also
United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 907-08 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining
retroactive guidelines amendment did not apply factually in defendant’s case
because sentence imposed was unaffected by amendment).
1
“We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions about the sentencing guidelines
and the scope of its authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Liberse, 688 F.3d
1198, 1200 n.1 (11th Cir. 2012).
2
Case: 12-12607 Date Filed: 08/13/2013 Page: 3 of 3
Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines amended the drug quantity
table in § 2D1.1(c) to reduce offense levels in cases involving cocaine base. See
U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 750. Santana’s applicable Guidelines range is not
affected by Amendment 750. Santana’s base offense level remains the same
because the district court expressly found him accountable for 150 kilograms of
cocaine, rather than cocaine base, at the sentencing hearing, as recorded in its
Statement of Reasons. That finding, without more, supported his applicable base
offense level of 38 and Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months’ imprisonment. See
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1). Under the circumstances, Amendment 750 is not factually
applicable to Santana’s case as it pertains to cocaine base, not cocaine. The district
court did not err in denying Santana’s motion for a sentence reduction. See
Armstrong, 347 F.3d at 907-08.2
AFFIRMED.
2
Santana’s arguments concerning the breakdown of the drug quantities in the PSI do not
change this result because the district court stated at sentencing and later in its statement of
reasons that, based on witness testimony, it was holding Santana responsible for at least 150
kilograms of cocaine, in addition to more than 8 kilograms of cocaine base. To the extent
Santana is arguing the district court erred in its original determination of drug quantity, the
district court lacked jurisdiction to consider that claim in the context of his § 3582(c)(2) motion.
See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000).
3