United States of America v. Margarito Garcia-Fragoso

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 22, 2015 *
Decided December 22, 2015
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
No. 15-2512
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARGARITO GARCIA-FRAGOSO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 12-CR-00256
Lynn Adelman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Margarito Garcia-Fragoso appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on the retroactive application
of Amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines. Because Garcia-Fragoso’s sentence was
already below the amended guidelines range and the court did not have the discretion to
go any lower, we affirm.
* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. A PP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 15-2512 Page 2
Garcia-Fragoso pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine,
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking
offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Garcia-Fragoso was responsible for at least two
kilograms of cocaine, so his base offense level for the § 841(a)(1) conviction was 28. His
guidelines range was 84 to 105 months’ imprisonment (based on a total offense level of
25 and a criminal-history category of IV), but the district court concluded that a
below-range sentence was appropriate and sentenced him to 66 months.
Amendment 782 lowered by two levels the base offense level specified in the
Drug Quantity Table, see U.S.S.G. Supp. App. C , amend. 782 (2014), and reduced
Garcia-Fragoso’s range to 70 to 87 months. The district court denied Garcia-Fragoso a
reduction because, as his 66-month sentence was already below the amended guidelines
range, it did not have discretion to grant a reduction.
On appeal Garcia-Fragoso argues that the district court did have discretion to
reduce his 66-month sentence because it exceeded the 60-month statutory minimum.
See § 841(b)(1)(B)(ii). But as the court explained, it was not authorized to reduce
Garcia-Fragoso’s sentence below the 70-month minimum of the amended guideline
range. Any reduction must be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by
the Sentencing Commission,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see United States v. Guyton, 636 F.3d
316, 318 (7th Cir. 2011), and the policy statements provide that a defendant’s sentence
may not be reduced to “less than the minimum of the amended guideline range,” minus
exceptions not applicable here, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A); see United States v.
Cunningham, 554 F.3d 703, 708 (7th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --