Case: 16-10767 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10767
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00138-TWT-ECS-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NOLVER NOEL MOLINA-GONZALEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 17, 2016)
Before MARCUS, JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-10767 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 2 of 6
Nolver Molina-Gonzalez, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion for a reduction of his 97-month sentence
based on Amendment 782. Mr. Molina-Gonzalez argues that the district court
abused its discretion by failing to recalculate his advisory guideline range and to
account for the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Upon review of the
record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
I
In 2013, Mr. Molina-Gonzalez pled guilty to conspiring to possess, with the
intent to distribute, at least 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(b)(1)(A)(viii) and 846. According to the PSI, Mr. Molina-Gonzalez was part
of a drug trafficking operation that imported crystal methamphetamine from
Mexico into the United States for distribution. Mr. Molina-Gonzalez was held
responsible for 16.914 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine, see PSI at ¶ 22, and
his base offense level was 38 under the 2012 Sentencing Guidelines.1
Applying other guideline adjustments, the PSI calculated a total offense
level of 39 and criminal history of I, which yielded an advisory sentencing range of
1
In a separate paragraph, see PSI at ¶ 26, the PSI stated that Mr. Molina-Gonzalez was
involved in a conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 19.06486 kilograms of crystal
methamphetamine. Mr. Molina-Gonzalez did not object to this factual discrepancy, and it is
irrelevant to the disposition here because both amounts exceed the minimum of 4.5 kilograms for
an offense level of 38 under the revised drug quantity table found in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1).
2
Case: 16-10767 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 3 of 6
262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court made
additional adjustments and reduced Mr. Molina-Gonzalez’s total offense level to
30, resulting in an advisory guideline range of 97 to 121 months’ imprisonment.
The district court then sentenced Mr. Monlina-Gonzalez to 97 months’
imprisonment, at the low end of the advisory guideline range, in light of mitigating
factors including “his minor role in the offense and his lack of a prior criminal
background.” See Transcript of Sentencing, D.E. 89, at 26 (Sep. 6, 2013).
In 2015, Mr. Molina-Gonzalez filed a motion for a sentence reduction under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 782, which retroactively amended
the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). In relevant part, Amendment 782
increased the amount of “ice” (crystal methamphetamine) necessary to qualify for
a base offense level of 38 to at least 4.5 kilograms. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1)
(2014). But Mr. Molina-Gonzalez was held responsible for an amount of crystal
methamphetamine that exceeded 4.5 kilograms. The district court therefore denied
Mr. Molina-Gonzalez’s motion for a reduction of sentence because Amendment
782 did not alter his base offense level or affect his advisory guideline range.
II
We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal
authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d
662, 666 (11th Cir. 2014). A district court’s decision about whether to reduce a
3
Case: 16-10767 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 4 of 6
sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2003).
A district court conducts a two-step analysis when considering a motion for
a reduction of sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d
778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). First, the court must determine the sentence it would have imposed using the defendant’s amended guideline range while keeping all other guideline findings made at the original sentencing hearing intact. Seeid. Second, the
court must consider the factors in § 3553(a) and determine, in its discretion, whether to reduce the defendant’s sentence. Seeid. at 781.
If, however, a defendant’s guideline range would not be lowered by an amendment, the district court need not reach the second step of the analysis nor examine the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Webb,565 F.3d 789
, 793 (11th Cir. 2009).
Mr. Molina-Gonzalez asserts that he was eligible for an additional two-level
reduction based on Amendment 782 and that the district court erred by failing to
consider the § 3553(a) factors. Under the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the
time of Mr. Molina-Gonzalez’s original sentencing, a drug quantity of 500 grams
or more of crystal methamphetamine resulted in a base offense level of 38. See
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2012). As a result of Amendment 782, the Guidelines
now provide that a drug quantity of 4.5 kilograms or more of crystal
methamphetamine triggers a base offense level of 38. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1)
4
Case: 16-10767 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 5 of 6
(2016). Significantly, Mr. Molina-Gonzalez did not object to the PSI’s factual
finding that he was responsible for 16.914 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine
and he did not challenge that drug quantity before the district court. That amount
exceeds the minimum under the revised drug quantity table and therefore does not
have the effect of lowering Mr. Molina-Gonzalez’s base offense level or his
advisory guideline range.
Without disturbing the district court’s other advisory guideline findings, Mr.
Molina-Gonzalez’s drug quantity still triggers a base offense level of 38 and his
new guideline calculation yields an identical sentencing range of 97 to 121
months’ imprisonment. Accordingly, the district court was not authorized to
reduce Mr. Molina-Gonzalez’s sentence because Amendment 782 did not lower his
applicable guideline range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. §
1B1.10(a)(2)(B). See also United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013). The district court was therefore within its discretion to skip the second step of evaluating the § 3553(a) factors because it had determined that Mr. Molina- Gonzalez was ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2). SeeWebb, 565 F.3d at 793
.
III
The district court correctly denied Mr. Molina-Gonzalez’s motion under §
3582(c)(2) because retroactive application of the amended drug quantity table
5
Case: 16-10767 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 6 of 6
following Amendment 782 did not change Mr. Molina-Gonzalez’s base offense
level or its corresponding advisory guideline range.
AFFIRMED.
6