USA v. Efrain Casado, No. 15-11483 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 2, 2020.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 13, 2022.
Download PDF
Case: 15-11483 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-11483 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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 nowamended 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
