United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas

285 F. App'x 172

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 23, 2008

Docket07-10966

StatusUnpublished

This text of 285 F. App'x 172 (United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Gonzalez-Balderas, 285 F. App'x 172 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Hilario Gonzalezr-Balderas, Sr., (Gonzalez), federal prisoner # 55110-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion to reduce his sentence based on retroactive application of Amendments 591 and 599 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He also argues that Amendment 505 should be applied in his case. However, Gonzalez did not raise this issue in the district court, and it will not be considered on appeal. See United States v. Smith, 915 F.2d 959, 964 (5th Cir.1990). Moreover, this court has previously addressed this argument in United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir.1997).

Gonzalez contends that Amendment 599 should be applied in his case. He argues that the firearm enhancement he received resulted in double counting under the provisions of Amendment 599. Because Gonzalez was convicted of offenses arising under 21 U.S.C. § 848 and 18 U.S.C. § 371, Amendment 599 is inapplicable to his case. See United States v. Dixon, 273 F.3d 636, 643-44 (5th Cir.2001). His argument is without merit.

Gonzalez argues that Amendment 591 is retroactively applicable to his case. He asserts that his sentence was improperly calculated under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 rather than § 2D1.5. However, Gonzalez’s sen *173 tence was calculated by using § 2D1.5 to determine the base offense level, which referenced the drug quantity table of § 2D1.1. See Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d at 983. Additionally, Amendment 591 is irrelevant to the determination of base offense levels within the applicable offense guidelines section or to any consideration of relevant conduct. U.S.S.GApp. C, Amendment 591 (Nov. 2000).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Hilario Gonzalezr-Balderas, Sr., (Gonzalez), federal prisoner # 55110-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion to reduce his sentence based on retroactive application of Amendments 591 and 599 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He also argues that Amendment 505 should be applied in his case. However, Gonzalez did not raise this issue in the district court, and it will not be considered on appeal. See United States v. Smith, 915 F.2d 959, 964 (5th Cir.1990). Moreover, this court has previously addressed this argument in United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir.1997).

Gonzalez contends that Amendment 599 should be applied in his case. He argues that the firearm enhancement he received resulted in double counting under the provisions of Amendment 599. Because Gonzalez was convicted of offenses arising under 21 U.S.C. § 848 and 18 U.S.C. § 371, Amendment 599 is inapplicable to his case. See United States v. Dixon, 273 F.3d 636, 643-44 (5th Cir.2001). His argument is without merit.

Gonzalez argues that Amendment 591 is retroactively applicable to his case. He asserts that his sentence was improperly calculated under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 rather than § 2D1.5. However, Gonzalez’s sen *173 tence was calculated by using § 2D1.5 to determine the base offense level, which referenced the drug quantity table of § 2D1.1. See Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d at 983. Additionally, Amendment 591 is irrelevant to the determination of base offense levels within the applicable offense guidelines section or to any consideration of relevant conduct. U.S.S.GApp. C, Amendment 591 (Nov. 2000).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 F. App'x 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gonzalez-balderas-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack