Case Information
*1 Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: [*]
Juan Carlos Pinales, federal prisoner # 50040-177, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting. He filed a pro se motion to “vacate, correct[], or . . . set aside” his sentence on account of a “clarifying amendment.” His motion contended that the district court erred in declining to apply a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. §3B1.2 and that he deserved a sentence reduction in light of Amendment 794 to the Guidelines. Construing his motion as one for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the district court denied it. In a filing that we construe as a notice of appeal, [1] Pinales re-urges the arguments he made to the district court.
*2 Case: 17-11080 Document: 00514247938 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2017
No. 17-11080
Pinales’s arguments on appeal are unavailing. Section 3582(c)(2) applies only to retroactive guidelines amendments as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). Amendment 794 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) as an amendment for which a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) may be granted. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that Amendment 794 is not a basis for the sentence reduction requested by Pinales. See Dillon , 560 U.S. at 826; United States v. Jones , 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010). Likewise, Pinales’s other challenges, largely based on Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), are not cognizable under § 3582(c)(2).
AFFIRMED. that it is a constructive notice of appeal. United States v. Santora , 711 F.2d 41, 42 n.1 (5th Cir. 1983).
2
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
[1] Although Pinales’s filing was initially characterized as a motion for authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, our review of its substance leads us to conclude