United States v. Gomez-Elvir ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS            April 23, 2003
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 02-20916
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JORGE LUIS GOMEZ-ELVIR,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-00-CR-309-ALL
    --------------------
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Jorge Luis Gomez-Elvir (Gomez), federal prisoner number
    88307-079, appeals the denial of his motion for modification of
    sentence pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2).    He argues that
    Amendment 632 is a clarification of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 and should
    be applied retroactively.    In support of his position, he cites
    to two of this court’s unpublished opinions.    Neither case
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    No. 02-20916
    -2-
    supports his proposition that Amendment 632 is retroactively
    applicable in a motion under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c).
    Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines may not be applied
    retroactively upon a motion under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2) unless
    they are specifically set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c).
    U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a), p.s. (Nov. 2001).     Amendment 632 is not
    listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) and therefore may not be applied
    retroactively to Gomez’s motion.   See United States v. Drath, 
    89 F.3d 216
    , 218 (5th Cir. 1996)(amendment not listed in U.S.S.G.
    § 1B1.10(c) “cannot be given retroactive effect in the context of
    a § 3582(c)(2) motion”).   The district court did not abuse its
    discretion in denying Gomez’s motion.     AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-20916

Filed Date: 4/23/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014