Case: 15-11483 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11483
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:99-cr-00125-KMM-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EFRAIN CASADO,
a.k.a. E-4,
a.k.a. Efro,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 26, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11483 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Efrain Casado, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and currently serving a
total life sentence for his role in a cocaine distribution conspiracy, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Casado argues
that the district court incorrectly determined that Amendment 782 did not affect his
guideline sentencing range. Casado also maintains that the sentencing court
improperly used U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1’s murder cross-reference in calculating his
offense level and that his total sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.
466 (2000). After review,1 we affirm.
Casado’s guideline sentencing range stemmed not from § 2D1.1(c), the now-
amended drug quantity table, but from § 2D1.1(d)(1), the murder cross-reference
to § 2A1.1. See United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1256 (11th Cir. 2005).
Amendment 782 amended neither § 2D1.1(d)(1) nor § 2A1.1. Therefore, the
district court correctly concluded that Casado is ineligible for a sentence reduction
under Amendment 782. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B)
(“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.”).
1
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions as to the scope of its authority
under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th Cir. 2008).
2
Case: 15-11483 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 3 of 3
We decline to consider Casado’s challenges to the sentencing court’s
original guideline calculations under Apprendi and to the substantive
reasonableness of Casado’s sentence because they are “extraneous resentencing
issues” not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Bravo,
203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
3