
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eden FLORES, Sr., Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-40295 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed March 14, 2018
    Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Eden Flores, Sr., Pro Se
    Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Eden Flores, Sr., appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3682(c)(2) motion to reduce his concurrent life sentences on his jury trial convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute approximately 201 kilograms of cocaine and for possession with intent to distribute approximately 201 kilograms of cocaine. Flores sought relief under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which modified the drug quantity table set out in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(e) and effectively lowered most drug-related base offense levels by two levels.

When considering a reduction under § 3682(c)(2), a district court must substitute the retroactive amendment "for the corresponding guideline provisions” while leaving “all other guideline application decisions unaffected.” U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(1), p.s.; see Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The district court correctly determined that the revised total offense level for Flores’s drug trafficking convictions was 46. Amendment 782 consequently results in no change in Flores’s drug trafficking sentences because, even factoring in the amendment’s reduction of the base offense level, Flores has a total offense level that corresponds to life imprisonment, i.e„ to the original sentences imposed. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (6th Cir. 2011). Flores’s motion to decide the appeal as being unopposed by the Government is DENIED. .

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     