United States v. Escobar

Second Circuit

United States v. Escobar

22 F. App'x 50

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 2001

DocketNo. 00-1700

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 F. App'x 50 (United States v. Escobar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Escobar, 22 F. App'x 50 (2d Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the decision of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Felipe Escobar appeals from the denial of a motion for modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Escobar seeks to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 518 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, adopted after his sentence was imposed. He contends on appeal that the district court erred in concluding that post-sentence modification is not permitted because Amendment 518 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 161.10(c).

We find no error in the district court’s decision. Section 1B1.10(c) governs reductions of sentence due to subsequent amendments and specifies which amendments a defendant may invoke under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 255, 259 (2d Cir.1997). Amendment 518 is not included in § 1B1.10(c). Section 3582 is therefore inapplicable.

We have considered all of the defendant’s contentions and find no merit in any of them. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the decision of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Felipe Escobar appeals from the denial of a motion for modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Escobar seeks to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 518 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, adopted after his sentence was imposed. He contends on appeal that the district court erred in concluding that post-sentence modification is not permitted because Amendment 518 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 161.10(c).

We find no error in the district court’s decision. Section 1B1.10(c) governs reductions of sentence due to subsequent amendments and specifies which amendments a defendant may invoke under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 255, 259 (2d Cir.1997). Amendment 518 is not included in § 1B1.10(c). Section 3582 is therefore inapplicable.

We have considered all of the defendant’s contentions and find no merit in any of them. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F. App'x 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-escobar-ca2-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack