Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
No. 15-7310
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:05-cr-00134-MSD-FBS-1)
Submitted:
Judge,
Decided:
and
HAMILTON
February 4, 2016
and
DAVIS,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
Ricardo Bornales, III, appeals from the district courts
order
denying
his
18
U.S.C.
3582(c)(2)
(2012)
motion.
On
review
for
abuse
of
discretion
We affirm.
district
courts
court
may
modify
the
term
of
imprisonment
of
issue
is
retroactively
applicable.
See
U.S.
Sentencing
Amendment 782
the
applicable
See
Guidelines
range,
USSG
1B1.10(b)(1)
provides that the court should substitute the amendment for the
corresponding Guidelines provisions that were applied when the
2
movant was sentenced and that the court should leave all other
Guidelines application decisions unaffected.
United States v.
Lindsey, 556 F.3d 238, 244 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Bornaless presentence report (PSR) attributed him with
over 31 kilograms of Ice.
In denying Bornaless
3582 motion, the district court found him responsible for over
31 kilograms of Ice, which Bornales claims was error given
that
the
district
court
did
not
make
specific
findings
at
sentencing.
Amendment 782 lowered the offense levels for drug offenses
involving certain quantities of drugs.
USSG App. C Amend. 782.
USSG 2D1.1(c)(1).
Accordingly, if Bornales
inconsistent
with
those
made
during
the
original
(7th
Cir.
2010).
Specifically,
finding
that
the
with
the
conclusion
of
the
original
sentencing
find
of
that
Ice.
numerous
Bornales
was
Nonetheless,
Ice
the
transactions
PSRs
statements
drug
amount
regarding
responsible
contains
involving
over
12
31
pages
Bornales
and
calculation
individual
PSR
for
or
any
sales.
of
In
the
factual
addition,
at
that
Accordingly,
has
the
given
failed
amounts
the
to
come
stated
high
in
level
4
forward
the
of
with
PSR
any
were
deference
evidence
inaccurate.
due
to
the
that,
second
at
argument
his
is
original
easily
rejected.
sentencing,
his
Bornales
base
offense
instant
case,
however,
the
district
court,
was
In
clearly
38
at
Bornales
Amendment 782.
his
original
additional
original
sentencing
as
well
as
after
adjustments,
such
not
calculation
relevant
to
the
was
based
district
on
courts