United States v. Victor Valles-Velazquez

672 F. App'x 511
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 13, 2017
Docket15-40324 Summary Calendar
StatusUnpublished

This text of 672 F. App'x 511 (United States v. Victor Valles-Velazquez) 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. Victor Valles-Velazquez, 672 F. App'x 511 (5th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Victor Manuel Valles-Velazquez (Valles) is serving a 235-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin. Valles appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Valles requested that the district court reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which had the effect of retroactively lowering most drug-related base offense levéis by two levels. Valles argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion because when recalculating his sentence under the amendment, it should have incorporated the two-level reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 for agreeing to waive his right to appeal and seek post-conviction relief that he received at the initial sentencing.

The two-level reduction Valles initially received based on his agreement to waive his right to appeal or to seek post-conviction relief was a departure. See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. The district court was required to re-calculate the guideline range without reapplying the § 5K2.0 departure, and it could not reduce Valles’s sentence below 235 months, the bottom of the amended guideline range. United States v. Contreras, 820 F.3d 773, 774-75 (5th Cir. 2016). Given that Valles had been sentenced to 235 months, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Valles was not entitled to a reduction in his sentence. See id; United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Related

United States v. Henderson
636 F.3d 713 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Rick Contreras
820 F.3d 773 (Fifth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
672 F. App'x 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-victor-valles-velazquez-ca5-2017.