USA v. John Villalonga, No. 15-10775 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-10775 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-10775 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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: 2 of 3 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 2 Case: 15-10775 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 3 of 3 statutory mandatory minimum and whose guideline range was not lowered by the retroactive amendment. We AFFIRM the denial of Villalonga’s sentence. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
