Case: 15-11071 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11071
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20680-MGC-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JONTH KENEDY OBREGON-SAAVEDRA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 28, 2015)
Before HULL, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11071 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Jonth Obregon Saavedra, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from
the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce sentence, filed pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). On appeal, Saavedra asserts that Amendment 782 to the
Sentencing Guidelines reduced his total offense level by two levels and that the
district court abused its discretion in denying him the reduction. However, because
Saavedra was responsible for more than 450 kilograms of cocaine—a fact that he
does not dispute—Amendment 782 would not lower his offense level.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Saavedra’s motion for a
sentence reduction, and we affirm.
“We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions about the
[S]entencing [G]uidelines and the scope of its authority under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2).” See United States v. Liberse, 688 F.3d 1198, 1200 n.1 (11th Cir.
2012). 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; however, a reduction must be “consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The
applicable policy statements 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).
2
Case: 15-11071 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 3 of 3
Under the Guidelines in effect at the time of Saavedra’s original sentencing,
a drug quantity of 150 kilograms or more of cocaine resulted in a base offense
level of 38. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2012). As a result of Amendment 782, the
Guidelines now provide that a drug quantity of 450 kilograms or more of cocaine
results in a base offense level of 38. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2014). However, at
no point has Saavedra disputed that he was responsible for at least 1,100 kilograms
of cocaine. Thus, even after Amendment 782 raised the threshold amount of
cocaine required for a base offense level of 38 (from 150 kilograms to 450
kilograms), Saavedra’s base offense level would still be 38 because he was
responsible for more than 450 kilograms of cocaine. Because Amendment 782 did
not lower Saavedra’s offense level, he was not entitled to relief under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582. See id. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
Therefore, after consideration of the parties’ briefs, the record on appeal, and
the relevant law, we affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.
3