United States v. Eden Flores, Sr. ( 2018 )

Case: 17-40295 Document: 00514385782 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-40295
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
Summary Calendar FILED
March 14, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
EDEN FLORES, SR.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:07-CR-144-2
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Eden Flores, Sr., appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his concurrent life sentences on his jury trial
convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute approximately
201 kilograms of cocaine and for possession with intent to distribute
approximately 201 kilograms of cocaine. Flores sought relief under
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which modified the drug
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-40295 Document: 00514385782 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2018
No. 17-40295
quantity table set out in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) and effectively lowered most drug-
related base offense levels by two levels.
When considering a reduction under § 3582(c)(2), a district court must
substitute the retroactive amendment “for the corresponding guideline
provisions” while leaving “all other guideline application decisions unaffected.”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1), p.s.; see Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827
(2010). The district court correctly determined that the revised total offense
level for Flores’s drug trafficking convictions was 46. Amendment 782
consequently results in no change in Flores’s drug trafficking sentences
because, even factoring in the amendment’s reduction of the base offense level,
Flores has a total offense level that corresponds to life imprisonment, i.e., to
the original sentences imposed. The district court therefore did not abuse its
discretion in denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Henderson,
636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). Flores’s motion to decide the appeal as being
unopposed by the Government is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
2