United States of America v. Juan Mata-Soto

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN MATA-SOTO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 22-3012
(D.C. No. 2:08-CR-20160-KHV-1)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Juan Mata-Soto, a federal inmate appearing pro se, 1 appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his motion for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). Because the district court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.
1 Because Mr. Mata-Soto is proceeding pro se, “we liberally construe his
filings, but we will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315
(10th Cir. 2013).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 14, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 22-3012 Document: 010110696465 Date Filed: 06/14/2022 Page: 1

-- 1 of 5 --

2
consider his motion, we affirm its dismissal of Mr. Mata-Soto’s motion and deny him
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Mata-Soto pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 846. At sentencing, the district court attributed
78.93 kilograms of methamphetamine to Mr. Mata-Soto, resulting in a base offense
level of 38 under the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual
§2D1.1(c)(1) (2009). Mr. Mata-Soto initially objected to the district court’s
attribution of 78.93 kilograms and the resultant base offense level calculation. He
withdrew his objection before sentencing, however, and his counsel confirmed the
withdrawal of the objection on the record at the sentencing hearing. Following the
applicable Guidelines range, the court sentenced Mr. Mata-Soto to life in prison.
Mr. Mata-Soto sought a modification of his sentence from the district court under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because he claimed the United States Sentencing Commission
retroactively lowered his Guidelines range. The district court dismissed his motion,
concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Mr. Mata-Soto now appeals that
dismissal.
II. DISCUSSION
The scope of a district court’s authority under § 3582(c)(2) is a question of law
reviewed de novo. United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275, 1277 (10th Cir. 2013)
(abrogated on other grounds, see Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018)).
Appellate Case: 22-3012 Document: 010110696465 Date Filed: 06/14/2022 Page: 2

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Generally, federal courts lack jurisdiction to modify a term of imprisonment once it
has been imposed. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819 (2010). A district court,
however, may modify a sentence if there is statutory authorization to do so. Graham,
704 F.3d at 1277. Section 3582(c)(2) allows courts to consider certain factors and
reduce a sentence that was based on a Guidelines sentencing range when that
sentencing range was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). This court has been clear that under § 3582(c)(2) “the defendant
must show he was sentenced based on a guideline range the Sentencing Commission
lowered subsequent to defendant’s sentencing.” United States v. C.D., 848 F.3d 1286,
1289 (10th Cir. 2017). If the defendant fails to make that showing “the district court
lacks jurisdiction over the defendant’s motion and the motion must be dismissed.” Id.
The district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider Mr. Mata-Soto’s
motion because he failed to show a subsequent amendment lowered his Guidelines
range. We agree.
Mr. Mata-Soto argues Guidelines Amendment 782 lowered his Guidelines
range. 79 Fed. Reg. 25996, 25999 (May 6, 2014) (“Amendment 782”). And to be
sure, Amendment 782 did lower the base offense levels for certain drug offenses. Id.
The Guidelines, as amended, impose a base offense level of 38 for offenses involving
at least forty-five kilograms of methamphetamine, however. USSG §2D1.1(c)(1)
(2021). Because the court attributed more than forty-five kilograms of
methamphetamine to Mr. Mata-Soto, Amendment 782 does not impact
Appellate Case: 22-3012 Document: 010110696465 Date Filed: 06/14/2022 Page: 3

-- 3 of 5 --

4
Mr. Mata-Soto’s applicable Guidelines range. Mr. Mata-Soto would still have a base
offense level of 38, regardless of the amendment. 2
While Mr. Mata-Soto argues the district court improperly attributed the 78.93
kilograms of methamphetamine in his case, he withdrew any objection to that
calculation at sentencing. And regardless, a request for the court to recalculate drug
quantity goes far beyond the proper scope of § 3582(c) proceedings. See USSG
§1B1.10(b)(1) (stating a court “shall substitute only the amendments. . . for the
corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was
sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected”); see
also United States v. Larsen, 664 F. App’x 751, 753 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished)
(explaining the district court had no ability to revisit Guidelines calculations because
the defendant did not object to the calculation of drug quantity at sentencing and
Amendment 782 does not impact how quantities of drugs are calculated). Because
Mr. Mata-Soto cannot show Amendment 782 lowered his applicable Guidelines
range, the district court correctly concluded it did not have jurisdiction to consider
his motion.
2 According to a Sentencing Commission policy statement, if an amendment,
including Amendment 782, “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s
applicable guideline range,” a reduction is “not authorized under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2)”. USSG §1B1.10(a)(2).
Appellate Case: 22-3012 Document: 010110696465 Date Filed: 06/14/2022 Page: 4

-- 4 of 5 --

5
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of
Mr. Mata-Soto’s motion. 3
Entered for the Court
Carolyn B. McHugh
Circuit Judge
3 We deny Mr. Mata-Soto’s motion to proceed IFP. Mr. Mata-Soto must show
“the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support
of the issues raised in the action.” Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312
(10th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Springer, 820 F. App’x 788, 792 (10th Cir.
2020) (unpublished). As the district court explained in its order, it does not have
jurisdiction to consider Mr. Mata-Soto’s motion. On appeal, Mr. Mata-Soto does not
engage with this reality but instead largely repeats arguments he made to the district
court. He therefore did not make a “reasoned, nonfrivolous” argument on appeal. Id.
Appellate Case: 22-3012 Document: 010110696465 Date Filed: 06/14/2022 Page: 5

-- 5 of 5 --