USA V. FELIPE CORONA-VERBERA, No. 17-10431 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 17 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-10431 D.C. No. 4:91-cr-00446-FRZ v. MEMORANDUM* FELIPE DE JESUS CORONA-VERBERA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 15, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Felipe de Jesus Corona-Verbera appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Corona-Verbera contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Corona-Verbera was convicted of offenses involving approximately 924 kilograms of cocaine. Even after Amendment 782, the base offense level for that drug amount is 38. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2014). Because Amendment 782 did not lower CoronaVerbera’s applicable guideline range, the district court correctly concluded that he is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. Contrary to Corona-Verbera’s contention, once the district court determined his ineligibility, it was not required to consider the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before denying his section 3582(c)(2) motion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010) (the court first must determine that a sentence reduction under section 3582 is consistent with section 1B1.10 before it may consider whether the authorized reduction is warranted under the section 3553(a) factors). AFFIRMED. 2 17-10431
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.
