United States v. Sandoval-Flores, 665 F. App'x 655

Defendant Sandoval-Flores moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on a guidelines amendment.
He previously received one § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on Amendment 782; this new motion invoked Amendment 599 for further reduction.
The district court denied the second motion as moot (having already granted relief previously).
The government did not defend mootness on appeal but argued Amendment 599 did not apply and the motion should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tenth Circuit found a simpler dispositive fact: Amendment 599 became effective November 1, 2000, before Sandoval-Flores’s sentencing (he was sentenced Feb. 26, 2001; judgment June 4, 2001), so the guideline was not “subsequently” lowered for purposes of § 3582(c)(2).
Because Sandoval-Flores was statutorily ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief, the district court lacked jurisdiction; the panel remanded with directions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Sandoval-Flores's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Amendment 599 provides a basis for § 3582(c)(2) relief	Amendment 599 applies and was not considered at sentencing, so it can reduce his sentence further	Amendment 599 does not apply to him	Denied — Amendment 599 was not ‘‘subsequent’’ to sentencing, so § 3582(c)(2) relief unavailable
Whether the district court’s denial was moot after prior § 3582 relief	The prior reduction did not render the new motion moot because a different amendment applies	Govt. did not defend mootness; focused on merits/jurisdiction	Court did not need to resolve mootness because statutory ineligibility resolved case
Whether statutory ineligibility for § 3582(c)(2) is jurisdictional	N/A (argument focused on merits/error-correction via appeal/habeas)	Govt. argued lack of eligibility requires dismissal for lack of jurisdiction	Panel followed earlier Tenth Circuit precedent holding ineligibility is jurisdictional and remanded for dismissal
Proper procedural avenue to challenge sentencing under an amendment that predated sentencing	He could correct sentencing errors on direct appeal or habeas; § 3582(c)(2) is available only where guidelines were later lowered	Govt. argued § 3582(c)(2) requires the change to post-date sentencing	Held that § 3582(c)(2) cannot be used to remedy a court’s failure to apply an amendment that was already effective at sentencing

United States v. Trujeque, 100 F.3d 869 (10th Cir. 1996) (held statutory ineligibility for § 3582 relief requires dismissal for lack of jurisdiction)
United States v. Avila, 997 F.2d 767 (10th Cir. 1993) (affirmed denial of § 3582 relief on the merits)
United States v. Darton, 595 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2010) (affirmed denial of § 3582 relief on the merits)
United States v. Hamilton, 525 F. App’x 730 (10th Cir. 2013) (applied Trujeque to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction)
United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2013) (applied Trujeque in holding ineligibility jurisdictional)
United States v. Taylor, 778 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2015) (held § 3582(c)(2) eligibility is nonjurisdictional)
United States v. Johnson, 732 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2013) (held § 3582 ineligibility nonjurisdictional)
Haynes v. Williams, 88 F.3d 896 (10th Cir. 1996) (panel should follow earlier intra-circuit precedent)
L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 344 U.S. 33 (1952) (court not bound by prior exercise of jurisdiction when it was passed sub silentio)