1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. U.S. v. ESCOBAR-SABALLOS
 

U.S. v. ESCOBAR-SABALLOS

No. 2:11-CR-00089-JAD-CWH.

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Angel Olvidio Escobar-Saballos, Defendant.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

February 21, 2017.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley W. Giles , U. S. Attorneys Office, Elizabeth Olson White , United States Attorneys Office, Peter S. Levitt , U.S. Attorney, Susan Cushman & Michael A. Humphreys , United States Attorneys Office.

Order Denying Second Motion for Sentence Reduction [ECF No. 206]

On April 10, 2012, the Honorable Judge Philip M. Pro sentenced Angel Olvidio Escobar-Saballos to 120 months in prison for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.1 In November 2014, Amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines reduced by two levels the base-offense levels for certain drug offenses. Shortly after the amendment took effect, I appointed Assistant Federal Public Defender Nisha Brooks-Whittington to determine whether Escobar-Saballos qualified for a reduction; she later withdrew as counsel and declined to move for the reduction. Escobar-Saballos then filed a pro se motion for a sentence reduction under the amendment, which I denied.2

Escobar-Saballos has now filed a second motion for a sentence reduction in which he reiterates that Amendment 782 is retroactive and applies to his sentence. As I explained in my previous order, the guidelines prohibit sentence reductions below the low end of the adjusted guideline range.3 Because Escobar-Saballos's 120-month sentence is less than the amended guideline range of 135-168 months' imprisonment, he is not eligible for a reduction under the amendment.4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Escobar-Saballos's second motion for a sentence reduction [ECF No. 206] is DENIED.

FootNotes


1. ECF No. 108.
2. ECF No. 205.
3. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) ("the court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 USC 3582(c)(2) . . . to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range"); see also United States v. Tercero, 734 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that "U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) prohibits reductions below the low end of the adjudged Guidelines range"); United States v. Davis, 739 F.3d 1222, 1223-1224 (9th Cir. 2014) (same).
4. It appears that Escobar-Saballos's 120-month sentence was the result of a downward variance from his original guideline range of 168-210 months.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases