USA v. Juan Madiedo

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10812
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20413-PAS-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN MADIEDO,
a.k.a. Toga Naju,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 29, 2015)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10812 Date Filed: 10/29/2015 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Juan Madiedo appeals pro se his sentence of 135 months of imprisonment
imposed after the district court reduced his original sentence of 140 months of
imprisonment for his drug offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Madiedo moved
for a reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
In 2012, Madiedo pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute at least 500
grams of methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. § 846. Madiedo admitted that he was
responsible for 1.066 kilograms of methamphetamine and .623 kilograms of a
substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, which was
equivalent to 22,567 kilograms of marijuana. Madiedo had a base offense of 36,
United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(a)(5), (c)(2) (Nov. 2011),
and received a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, id. § 3E1.1.
With an adjusted offense level of 33 and a criminal history of III, Madiedo had an
advisory guideline range between 168 and 210 months of imprisonment. The
district court varied downward from the advisory range and sentenced Madiedo to
140 months of imprisonment.
In 2014, Madiedo moved to reduce his sentence under Amendment 782.
Madiedo requested a two-level reduction of his offense level and a downward
variance from his amended guideline range. The government agreed that Madiedo
was entitled to a reduction of his sentence, “but only to the bottom of the newly
revised guidelines, here 135 months.” See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A).
Case: 15-10812 Date Filed: 10/29/2015 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
The district court granted Madiedo’s motion and reduced his sentence from
140 to 135 months of imprisonment. The district court entered an order stating that
the motion was “based on a guideline sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission.” The
sentence reduction, the district court stated, took “into account the policy statement
set forth at USSG § 1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable.”
“We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the
scope of its authority” to reduce a sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines,
United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th Cir. 2008), and we review its
decision whether to grant or deny the motion for abuse of discretion, id. at 1368
n.1. A district court may reduce a term of imprisonment when the defendant’s
guideline range is lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
After the district court recalculates the sentence under the amended guidelines, it
must decide, in the light of the statutory sentencing factors, id. § 3553(a),
“whether, in its discretion, it will elect to impose the newly calculated sentence
under the amended guidelines or retain the original sentence.” United States v.
Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780–81 (11th Cir. 2000). Any reduction must be “consistent
with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which preclude a “full resentencing of the defendant,”
Case: 15-10812 Date Filed: 10/29/2015 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(3); see Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S. Ct.
2683, 2694 (2010).
The district court did not err in reducing Madiedo’s sentence to 135 months
of imprisonment. Madiedo argues that he is entitled to a base offense level of 30
based on a lesser quantity of drugs than were attributed to him at sentencing, but
when considering a reduction of sentence “all original sentencing determinations
remain unchanged,” Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781. Based on the amended drug table, the
district court correctly assigned Madiedo an offense level of 34, U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(c)(3), which, with a three-level reduction for his acceptance of
responsibility and a criminal history of III, resulted in an amended sentencing
range between 135 and 168 months of imprisonment, id. Ch. 5, Pt. A. Madiedo
argues that he was entitled to a downward variance from the low end of his
amended range, but the Sentencing Guidelines prohibit the district court from
reducing a sentence “to a term . . . less than the minimum of the amended guideline
range.” Id. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). That limitation applies even though “the term of
imprisonment imposed was outside the guideline range applicable to [Madiedo] at
the time of sentencing.” See id. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.3.
We AFFIRM Madiedo’s amended sentence.
Case: 15-10812 Date Filed: 10/29/2015 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --