IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50163
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN JOSE MACIAS-CASTRO,
also known as Rogelio Martinez-Lopez,
also known as Martin Sotelo-Hernandez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-97-CR-106-ALL-JN
--------------------
October 29, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Jose Macias-Castro, federal prisoner # 79463-080,
appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
motion for reduction of his sentence for illegal reentry into the
United States after deportation. Macias-Castro asserts that he
is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 632, as that
recent amendment to the sentencing guidelines retroactively
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-50163
-2-
applies to reduce U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2's enhancement for deportation
following an aggravated felony conviction.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a sentencing court may
reduce a term of imprisonment “based on a sentencing range that
has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission
. . . , if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Section
3582(c)(2) applies only to amendments to the sentencing
guidelines that operate retroactively, as set forth in subsection
(c) of the applicable policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s.
United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 217-18 (5th Cir. 1996).
Amendment 632 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), p.s.
Thus, an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on
Amendment 632 would not be consistent with the Sentencing
Commission’s policy statement. See Drath, 89 F.3d 218.
Amendment 632 therefore cannot be given retroactive effect in the
context of an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. See id.
In light of the foregoing, the district court lacked the
authority to reduce Macias-Castro’s sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Lopez, 26 F.3d 512,
515 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s order denying
Macias-Castro’s motion for reduction of sentence is AFFIRMED.