United States of America v. Amando Villarreal Heredia, a.k.a. Gordo, a.k.a. Gordo Villareal, a.k.a. Amando…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AMANDO VILLARREAL HEREDIA,
a.k.a. Gordo, a.k.a. Gordo Villareal, a.k.a.
Amando Villareal Heredia, a.k.a. Armando
Villareal Heredia,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-50276
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-03044-WQH-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Amando Villarreal Heredia appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-50276
On remand from this court, the district court determined that Heredia’s
offenses involved more than 45 kilograms of methamphetamine mixture and,
therefore, that Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines did not lower his base
offense level. Because Heredia’s Guidelines range was not lowered, the district
court concluded that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. Heredia contends
that the district court erred in its drug quantity determination, and that he is eligible
for a reduction. We review the district court’s eligibility determination de novo,
and its drug quantity calculation for clear error. See United States v. Mercado-
Moreno, 869 F.3d 942, 953 (9th Cir. 2017).
The court’s quantity finding is amply supported by the facts contained in the
plea agreement and the presentence report (“PSR”). Contrary to Heredia’s
contention, the district court was not precluded from relying on the uncontested
facts in the PSR to determine drug quantity. See id. at 957. That the district court
adopted the plea agreement’s Guidelines calculation at sentencing, rather than the
calculation stated in the PSR, does not change this conclusion. Moreover, because
the plea agreement stated that the conspiracy involved more than 1.5 kilograms of
pure methamphetamine, the district court’s quantity determination did not conflict
with the plea agreement, and the government did not breach the plea agreement by
arguing for an amount greater than 1.5 kilograms. The district court did not clearly
err in its drug quantity determination; thus, it correctly concluded that Heredia was

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-50276
ineligible for a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(c)(1) (2014).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --