USA v. Amaury Salazar

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12868
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:03-cr-80093-DTKH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AMAURY SALAZAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 11, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 15-12868 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Amaury Salazar, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court determined that
Salazar was ineligible for a sentence reduction because Salazar had been sentenced
as a career offender. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of its
authority under section 3582(c)(2). United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1319
(11th Cir. 2012).
A district court may not reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment unless
(1) the defendant’s sentence was based upon a guideline range that the Sentencing
Commission later lowered and (2) a reduction is consistent with the Sentencing
Commission’s applicable policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A reduction
is inconsistent with the guidelines’ policy statements if the guidelines amendment
does not lower the defendant’s “applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), comment. (n.1(A)).
The district court lacked the authority to reduce Salazar’s sentence, pursuant
to section 3582(c)(2), because Salazar’s applicable guidelines range was not
lowered by Amendment 782. Retroactive application of Amendment 782 would
Case: 15-12868 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
have reduced Salazar’s base offense level based on the quantity of drugs involved
in his offense, but Salazar’s adjusted offense level would still be 37 based on the
operation of the career-offender guideline in section 4B1.1. Thus, Salazar’s
applicable guideline range remains unchanged. The district court committed no
error in concluding that Salazar is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See United
States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Where a retroactively
applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does
not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based,
§ 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence.” (alteration omitted)).
On appeal, Salazar contends that he never should have been sentenced as a
career offender because his prior felony convictions were deemed invalid for
purposes of a 21 U.S.C. § 851 enhancement. This Court has already rejected
Salazar’s argument on direct appeal. See United States v. Salazar, 157 F. App’x
190, 191 (11th Cir. 2005) (concluding that Salazar’s argument was foreclosed
squarely by circuit precedent). We are bound by our earlier determination of that
issue. See United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir. 1997)
(“Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, an issue decided at one stage of a case is
binding at later stages of the same case.”). Moreover, the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider Salazar’s challenge to his career-offender classification in
this proceeding. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000)
Case: 15-12868 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
(in the context of a section 3582(c)(2) motion, “all original sentencing
determinations remain unchanged with the sole exception of the guideline range
that has been amended since the original sentencing.” (emphasis in original)).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-12868 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --