United States v. Yuri Melendez ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 15-20040      Document: 00513204729         Page: 1    Date Filed: 09/23/2015
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT      United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    September 23, 2015
    No. 15-20040
    Summary Calendar                               Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    YURI DAVID MELENDEZ,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:09-CR-293-1
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Yuri David Melendez (Melendez), federal prisoner # 43548-279, appeals
    the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence
    reduction based upon retroactive Amendment 782 to the Sentencing
    Guidelines. Melendez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to export stolen motor
    vehicles and unlawfully transport stolen motor vehicles in foreign commerce
    and attempting to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-20040    Document: 00513204729    Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/23/2015
    No. 15-20040
    cocaine. The district court granted the Government’s motion for a downward
    departure for providing substantial assistance, and it sentenced Melendez to
    108 months of imprisonment on the cocaine count and the statutory maximum
    sentence of 60 months of imprisonment on the stolen vehicles count, the
    sentences to be served concurrently.
    Melendez argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying
    his § 3582(c)(2) motion without considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
    factors. He maintains that his guidelines sentence range was based upon a
    sentencing range that was lowered by Amendment 782 because the modified
    Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, was considered in his guidelines range
    calculation. He maintains that the cocaine count, which was assessed under
    § 2D1.1, clearly affected his guidelines range calculation because without the
    cocaine count his statutory maximum sentence would have been 60 months of
    imprisonment. The Government argues that Melendez’s appeal is barred by
    the appeal waiver in his plea agreement and that Melendez’s appeal is without
    merit.
    As the Government acknowledges, a standard appeal waiver, such as
    Melendez’s, does not bar a defendant from filing a § 3582(c)(2) motion or an
    appeal from the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States v. Cooley, 
    590 F.3d 293
    , 296-97 (5th Cir. 2009). The Government contends that Melendez’s
    appeal is barred by the appeal waiver because he is ineligible for relief under
    § 3582(c)(2), making his appeal some other type of challenge to his sentence.
    Melendez, however, sought only relief under § 3582(c)(2) in the district court
    and seeks only relief under § 3582(c)(2) in this court. Just because an appeal
    from the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion is unmeritorious does not make the
    appeal barred by a standard appeal waiver. See 
    Cooley, 590 F.3d at 296-298
    .
    2
    Case: 15-20040   Document: 00513204729    Page: 3      Date Filed: 09/23/2015
    No. 15-20040
    Accordingly, Melendez’s appeal waiver does not bar the present appeal. See
    
    id. Melendez’s guidelines
    sentence range was based upon the adjusted total
    offense level of the stolen vehicles count, and it was not modified by the
    adjusted total offense level of the cocaine count because the adjusted total
    offense level of the cocaine count was 10 levels lower than the adjusted total
    offense level of the stolen vehicles count. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4. Thus, applying
    Amendment 782 to Melendez’s case does not change Melendez’s guidelines
    sentence range.    As Amendment 782 did “not have the effect of lowering
    [Melendez’s] applicable guideline range,” Melendez was not eligible for a
    sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), and the district court did not abuse its
    discretion    by   denying   Melendez’s    §    3582(c)(2)     motion.    U.S.S.G.
    § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); see United States v. Bowman, 
    632 F.3d 906
    , 910-11 (5th Cir.
    2011).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-20040

Judges: Higginbotham, Elrod, Southwick

Filed Date: 9/23/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024