Case: 16-20153 Document: 00513758090 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 16-20153
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar November 14, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JORGE LOUIS JAIME QUINTANA, true name Jorge Louis Jaimes-Quintana,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:91-CR-71-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jorge Louis Jaime Quintana, federal prisoner # 59133-079, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, in which he sought
a reduction of his sentence for conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. He contends that Amendment
591 should be applied retroactively in his case. He argues that, under
Amendment 591, his base offense level should have been determined by
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 16-20153 Document: 00513758090 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2016
No. 16-20153
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.4 rather than U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. He further asserts that, at the
time of his sentencing, his conspiracy conviction was not covered by a specific
offense guideline and that U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1 was the appropriate section for his
offense. Jaime Quintana argues that, under § 2X1.1, he is entitled to a three-
level reduction in his offense level.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to
reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d
667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). At the time of the original sentencing proceeding,
Jaime Quintana’s sentence was calculated under § 2D1.4 and § 2D1.1. The
record shows that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2)
because Amendment 591 did not lower his offense level; under Amendment
591, his offense level was calculated under § 2D1.1. Thus, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. See Dillon v. United States,
560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Jaime Quintana’s
motion for expedited treatment of the appeal is DENIED.
2