USA v. John Villalonga

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10775
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20452-KMM-8
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN VILLALONGA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 17, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10775 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
John Villalonga appeals pro se the denial of his motion to reduce his
sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Villalonga sought a reduction based on
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Villalonga’s
motion to reduce. Amendment 782 did not alter Villalonga’s sentencing range.
Villalonga pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 1000 or
more marijuana plants and was sentenced to a minimum statutory penalty of 120
months of imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(vii), 846. Because
Villalonga’s sentence was not based on the drug quantity tables, see United States
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1, he was ineligible for a reduction of his
sentence. See id. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) & cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d
1070, 1077–78 (11th Cir. 2010).
Villalonga argues that he is entitled to relief under Freeman v. United States,
564 U.S. ____, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011), but we disagree. In Freeman, a plurality of
the Court concluded that a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction if he
enters a plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) to
receive a specific sentence that is based on a guideline range that has been
subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 131 S. Ct. at 2690. Freeman
does not address defendants, like Villalonga, who were sentenced based on the
Case: 15-10775 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
statutory mandatory minimum and whose guideline range was not lowered by the
retroactive amendment.
We AFFIRM the denial of Villalonga’s sentence.
Case: 15-10775 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --