US v. Pedro Camacho-Castillo, No. 17-6638 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6638 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PEDRO CAMACHO-CASTILLO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:12-cr-00971-RBH-2) Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: November 20, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pedro Camacho-Castillo, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM Pedro Camacho-Castillo appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm. In this case the district court correctly found that Amendment 782 would not lower Camacho-Castillo’s Guidelines range because Camacho-Castillo’s Guidelines range was calculated using the 2014 Guidelines, which included the changes to the Drug Quantity Table made by Amendment 782. Moreover, the district court sentenced Camacho- Castillo pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, and the record makes clear that the sentence was not based on the Guidelines range. See United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271, 276–77 (4th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, No. 17-142, 2017 WL 3219499 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2017). Accordingly, Camacho-Castillo is not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782, and we affirm the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.