Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NELSON RUBIEL CANAR-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Nelson Canar-Valencia appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which allows a court to modify a defendant's term of imprisonment if the Sentencing Commission later reduces the guidelines range for his offense. He contends that he was entitled to that reduction based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We disagree.
Amendment 782 amended the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) by, among other things, increasing from 150 kilograms to 450 kilograms the minimum amount of cocaine for which a defendant must be responsible to qualify for a base offense level of 38. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) (2013), with U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) (2014). This change would not have affected Canar-Valencia's base offense level, however, because — according to the presentence investigation report in his case — he was “accountable for approximately 5,268 kilograms of cocaine” (and some heroin). As a result, he is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th Cir. 2008).1
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Because we conclude that the district court correctly denied Canar-Valencia's motion on the merits, we do not address the government's law of the case argument.We also do not address Canar-Valenica's arguments as to “safety valve” reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, and his lack of access to certain programs available to non-alien prisoners. Those arguments have no bearing on whether he was entitled to relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Section 3582(c), under which this sentencing hearing was held, does not grant to the court jurisdiction to consider extraneous resentencing issues such as this one. Bravo must instead bring such a collateral attack on his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”).
PER CURIAM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-15854
Decided: April 05, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)