United States v. Principe-Espinoza

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 24, 2003
Docket02-51010
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Principe-Espinoza (United States v. Principe-Espinoza) 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. Principe-Espinoza, (5th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 24, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-51010 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANK PRINCIPE-ESPINOZA, also known as Roberto Carlos Sanchez-Gutierez, also known as Frank Principe,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-823-DB --------------------

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frank Principe-Espinoza, federal prisoner # 14170-051,

appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

motion wherein he argued that the 2001 Sentencing Guidelines

version of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b) should be applied retroactively to

his sentence under Amendment 632.

Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines may not be applied

retroactively upon a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) unless

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 02-51010 -2-

they are specifically set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c).

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a), p.s. (Nov. 2001). Amendment 632 is not

listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) and therefore may not be applied

retroactively under Principe-Espinoza's motion. See United

States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 218 (5th Cir. 1996) (amendment not

listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) “cannot be given retroactive

effect in the context of a § 3582(c)(2) motion”). Accordingly,

the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied

Principe-Espinoza’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

United States v. Drath
89 F.3d 216 (Fifth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Principe-Espinoza, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-principe-espinoza-ca5-2003.