United States of America v. Esteban Cornelio-Legarda

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ESTEBAN CORNELIO-LEGARDA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-8085
(D.C. No. 2:07-CR-00239-SWS-1)
(D. Wyo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MORITZ, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Defendant Esteban Cornelio-Legarda, a prisoner proceeding pro se, moved for a
sentence reduction under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5G1.3(b)(2), claiming
his state and federal convictions should run concurrently.1 Generally, § 5G1.3(b)(2)
exists to credit defendants who served time in another jurisdiction for the same course of
conduct. See United States v. Johnson, 40 F.3d 1079, 1082 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
1 Defendant previously requested a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court granted the motion in part, reducing Defendant’s
life sentence to 360 months.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 14, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-8085 Document: 010110710663 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
omitted). Before the district court, Defendant argued that because his state convictions
for escape and joyriding were “relevant conduct” to his federal convictions, he should
receive credit pursuant to § 5G1.3(b)(2) for serving a state sentence of three years, six
months, and eleven days. Defendant referred to no other legal authority in support of the
relief he sought. Recognizing that § 5G1.3(b)(2) does not, in and of itself, confer
jurisdiction for a court to modify a defendant’s federal sentence, the district court
dismissed Defendant’s motion for lack of jurisdiction.2 Defendant appeals. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction to modify a sentence
de novo. United States v. Blackwell, 81 F.3d 945, 947 (10th Cir. 1996). Federal courts
cannot modify a prison term unless Congress “expressly granted the court jurisdiction.”
Id. (citation omitted). And the Guidelines do not confer jurisdiction. See United States
v. Tetty-Mensah, 665 F. App'x 687, 690 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (explaining the
Sentencing Guidelines are not jurisdiction-conferring statutes permitting a court to
modify a sentence). Rather, they advise sentencing courts. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 994(a)(1)). Because Defendant’s argument relies solely on the guidelines as the basis
for his requested sentencing modification, we conclude the district court correctly
determined that it lacked jurisdiction to modify his sentence.
2 The district court alternatively denied the motion because Defendant’s state
sentence arose from conduct not related to his federal sentence. Because the district
court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to modify Defendant’s federal
sentence, we do not reach its alternative conclusion.
Appellate Case: 21-8085 Document: 010110710663 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Joel M. Carson III
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 21-8085 Document: 010110710663 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --