United States v. Beltran

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-50401
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-50401 Document: 66-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50401 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ April 21, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Hernaldo Perea Beltran,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:00-CR-46-1 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Hernaldo Perea Beltran, federal prisoner # 51158-180, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Subpart 1 of Part B of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The motion requested a reduction of Perea Beltran’s current 342-month sentence of imprisonment for conspiring to distribute and to possess with the intent to

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-50401 Document: 66-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2025

No. 24-50401

distribute over five kilograms of cocaine. The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion based on a determination that Perea Beltran was not eligible for a decrease of two offense levels as a zero-point offender pursuant to Amendment 821 because he did not satisfy all the criteria under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a) (2023). When his pro se appellate brief is given liberal construction, see Morrow v. FBI, 2 F.3d 642, 643 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993), Perea Beltran contends that he qualifies for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 because he has zero criminal history points. However, because he received an aggravating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, Perea Beltran was not eligible for the two-point decrease in his offense level. See § 4C.1.1(a)(10). In light of the foregoing, the district court did not err in denying Perea Beltran’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 710 (5th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.