United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
P. Jordan III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant Walter Pernillo asks the Court to reduce his
sentence and appoint counsel. See Def.'s Mot.
. For the following reasons, his motion is denied.
Pernillo is a California resident who participated in a
substantial drug-trafficking conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine in Mississippi. On January 28, 2015, he
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C.
§ 846. On April 21, 2016, the Court sentenced Pernillo
to 151 months in prison. The sentence was at the bottom of
the applicable guideline range. Pernillo now seeks
resentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
submits a form motion on which he filled in blanks to
identify the sentencing court, sentencing date, guideline
calculations, sentence, and projected release date.
Def.'s Mot.  at 1. The motion states in relevant
part: “I hereby respectfully request a modification or
reduction of my sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) and the new guideline amendment 782 to the United
States Sentencing Guidelines, which make a reduction in the
base offense level for most drug offenses retroactive as of
November 1, 2014.” Id.
3582(c)(2) grants discretion to a district court to modify a
sentence that was based on a guidelines range which was later
lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” United
States v. Lopez-Cisneros, No. 19-40732, 2020 WL 61619,
at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2020). The Sentencing Commission did
that with Amendment 782, which allowed a two-level reduction
in the base offense level for drug-trafficking offenses found
in § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. United
States v. Morgan, 866 F.3d 674, 675 (5th Cir. 2017).
is not eligible for this reduction because he has already
received it. Amendment 782 became effective on November 1,
2014. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782. Pernillo was
sentenced on April 21, 2016, and his guideline calculations
reflected the two-level reduction. Section 3582(c)(2) does
not apply. See United States v. Summers, 740
Fed.Appx. 434 (5th Cir. 2018) (affirming denial of motion
where defendant was sentenced after effective date of
Pernillo's request for counsel is likewise denied. Title
18 U.S.C. § 3006A governs appointment of counsel to
indigent defendants. It requires that a person-like
Pernillo-“for whom counsel is appointed . . . be
represented at every stage of the proceedings from his
initial appearance . . . through appeal, including ancillary
matters appropriate to the proceedings.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3006A(c). But the Fifth Circuit has held that a motion
under § 3583(c)(2) “is ‘too far removed to
be considered “ancillary” to the criminal
proceeding.'” United States v. Hereford,
385 Fed.Appx. 366, 368 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting United
States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir.
1995)). Section 3006A(a)(2)(B) also permits a district court
to provide representation for “any financially eligible
person . . . seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255
of title 28” where “the interests of justice so
require.” But Pernillo has not filed a motion under any
of those statutes. Pernillo has pointed to no statutory basis
for appointment of counsel to assist him with his otherwise
meritless motion, so his request for counsel is
foregoing reasons, Pernillo's Motion for Modification of
Sentence  is denied.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED