USA v. Alfredo Medina, No. 18-10751 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-10751 Document: 00514729580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-10751 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 19, 2018 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee v. ALFREDO MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-133-1 Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alfredo Medina, federal prisoner # 39027-177, appeals the denial of a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendments 782, 790, and 794. For the reasons that follow, the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying him a sentence reduction. See United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 710 (5th Cir. 2018). 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-10751 Document: 00514729580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2018 No. 18-10751 A district court may reduce a term of imprisonment “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). A reduction is not consistent with the Commission’s policy statement, namely, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, or authorized under § 3582(c)(2) if the amendment to the guidelines range “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). The 162.84 kilograms of methamphetamine Medina was held accountable for yields the same base offense level of 38 under both the amended version of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) and the version in effect when he was sentenced. Therefore, Amendment 782 does not have the effect of lowering Medina’s guidelines range. To the extent that Medina challenges the calculation of this drug quantity, a § 3582(c)(2) motion may not be used to challenge the correctness of his original sentence. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010). A reduction is not consistent with § 1B1.10 or authorized under § 3582(c)(2) if “[n]one of the amendments listed in subsection (d) [of § 1B1.10] is applicable to the defendant.” § 1B1.10(a)(2)(A). Amendments 790 and 794 are not listed in § 1B1.10(d). See § 1B1.10(d). Accordingly, the district court was not authorized to reduce Medina’s sentence pursuant to Amendments 790 and 794. The judgment of the district court is 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.
