Case: 15-14898 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14898
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:95-cr-00314-JAL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAUL E. ISRAEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 19, 2016)
Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Raul Israel, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s denial of his
Case: 15-14898 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 2 of 4
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentences based on Amendment 782
to the Sentencing Guidelines. Israel was sentenced to 500 months’ imprisonment
for conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States and conspiracy to commit
money laundering. Israel argues that Amendment 782 reduces his total sentence.
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of
its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1319
(11th Cir. 2012). We liberally construe pro se pleadings. Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). The defendant, as the movant, bears
the burden of establishing that a retroactive amendment actually lowers his
guideline range. United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013).
However, § 3582(c)(2) does not grant the court jurisdiction to consider extraneous
resentencing issues, including collateral attacks on a sentence. United States v.
Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000).
Ordinarily, a district court may not modify a defendant’s term of
imprisonment once it has been imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). However, a district
court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if the term of imprisonment was “based
on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). For a defendant to be eligible for such a
reduction based on a subsequent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, the
relevant amendment must be listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). U.S.S.G.
2
Case: 15-14898 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 3 of 4
§ 1B1.10(a)(1). Because Amendment 782 is one of the listed amendments that
applies retroactively, it may serve as the basis for a § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce
sentence. U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10(a)(1), (d). Amendment 782 revises the drug
quantity tables in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, resulting in a two-level reduction to the base
offense level applicable to most drug offenses. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782
(2014). For defendants who possessed over 450 kilograms of cocaine, however,
the base offense level remained 38. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) (1995) to
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) (2014).
Nonetheless, the grounds upon which a district court may reduce a
defendant’s sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) are narrow. United States v. Berry,
701 F.3d 374, 376 (11th Cir. 2012). A district court may not reduce a defendant’s
term of imprisonment unless a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A
reduction is inconsistent with the Guidelines’ policy statement 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). Thus, “[w]here a retroactively applicable guideline
amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the
sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not
authorize a reduction in sentence.” Hamilton, 715 F.3d at 337.
3
Case: 15-14898 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 4 of 4
The district court did not err in denying Israel’s § 3582(c)(2) motion because
Amendment 782 does not lower his guideline range. Retroactively applying
Amendment 782 would not decrease Israel’s base offense level under U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(c) because he was held responsible for 10,000 kilograms of cocaine,
which still retains a base offense level of 38. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Accordingly,
Amendment 782 does not authorize a reduction in Israel’s sentences. See
Hamilton, 715 F.3d at 337. Furthermore, to the extent that Israel challenges his
sentences based on the district court’s error, such a claim is an extraneous
resentencing issue which cannot be addressed in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding.
Bravo, 203 F.3d at 82. Thus, the district court was not authorized to reduce
Israel’s total sentence under § 3582(c)(2), and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4