Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Page: 1 of 3
Case: 15-13578
Page: 2 of 3
Case: 15-13578
Page: 3 of 3
The district court did not err in determining Rios was not eligible for a
sentence reduction. See United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir.
2008) (reviewing de novo a district courts conclusion about the scope of its legal
authority under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2)). At Rioss original sentencing, the district
court adopted the presentence investigation reports (PSI) finding that his offense
conduct involved 519.2 kilograms of cocaine, and Rioss factual proffer was
consistent with that finding. Also, Rios did not object to that amount in the PSI.
See United States v. Davis, 587 F.3d 1300, 1303-04 (11th Cir. 2009) (affirming the
district courts use of an unobjected-to drug quantity amount in the PSI in a
3582(c)(2) proceeding). That amount of cocaine, even after Amendment 782,
still results in the same base offense level of 38, because it is above the 450kilogram threshold necessary to trigger that base offense level. Compare U.S.S.G.
2D1.1(c)(1) (2006), with U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(c)(1) (2014). Thus, because
Amendment 782 did not lower Rioss guideline range, the district court was
without authority to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). U.S.S.G.
1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
AFFIRMED.