3:21-cv-01431
D.P.R.Mar 27, 2023Background
- Petitioner Evelio Rosario‑Rosado pled guilty in 2017 to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of public housing and was sentenced to 135 months imprisonment and 10 years supervised release.
- He unsuccessfully appealed the judgment and later sought compassionate release in 2020 based on medical conditions; that motion was denied without prejudice and was not renewed.
- In September 2021 Petitioner filed a § 2255 motion (the pending Motion) raising several claims including entitlement to First Step Act § 404 relief, a request to serve the remainder of his sentence in home confinement, and ineffective assistance of counsel during compassionate‑release proceedings.
- The Government opposed the § 2255 motion, arguing (among other things) that § 2255 was not the proper vehicle for some requested relief.
- The District Court denied the § 2255 motion in full, holding Petitioner ineligible for § 404 relief, finding the court lacked authority to order home confinement, and rejecting the ineffective‑assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of First Step Act § 404 (retroactive Fair Sentencing Act relief) | Rosario argues § 404 allows reduction to the Fair Sentencing Act mandatory minimums | Govt argues § 2255 is not the proper vehicle and that § 404 relief is inapplicable here | Denied: Rosario was sentenced after the Fair Sentencing Act effective date, so § 404(c) excludes him from relief |
| Authority to order home confinement | Rosario asks court to permit him to serve the remainder of his sentence in home confinement | Govt contends such relief must be sought under § 3582(c) and court lacks authority | Denied: First Circuit precedent holds § 3582(c)(1)(A) does not authorize ordering home confinement; court lacks power to grant that relief |
| Proper procedural vehicle for requested relief | Rosario proceeded via § 2255 to seek sentence reduction and home confinement | Govt says § 2255 is an improper vehicle for First Step Act relief and compassionate‑release/home confinement requests | Court did not need to resolve vehicle question in full; even on merits Rosario’s substantive claims fail |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel re: compassionate release proceedings | Rosario contends counsel failed to inform court he couldn’t afford a medical expert and thus rendered ineffective assistance | Govt argues there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in § 3582(c) proceedings, so no Sixth Amendment IAC claim | Denied: No Sixth Amendment right to counsel for § 3582(c) motions, so IAC claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- David v. United States, 134 F.3d 470 (1st Cir. 1998) (standards for cognizable § 2255 claims and burden on petitioner)
- Moreno‑Morales v. United States, 334 F.3d 140 (1st Cir. 2003) (evidentiary‑hearing standard for § 2255 petitions)
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (Fair Sentencing Act does not apply retroactively to defendants sentenced before its effective date)
- United States v. Boulding, 960 F.3d 774 (6th Cir. 2020) (explaining § 404 retroactivity of Fair Sentencing Act)
- United States v. Teixeira‑Nieves, 23 F.4th 48 (1st Cir. 2022) (district courts lack authority under § 3582(c)(1)(A) to order service of an unmodified sentence at home)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (right to effective assistance of counsel depends on right to counsel)
- Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586 (1982) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel for discretionary post‑conviction proceedings)
- United States v. Manso‑Zamora, 991 F.3d 694 (6th Cir. 2021) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 3582(c) proceedings)
- United States v. Goodwin, 37 F.4th 948 (4th Cir. 2022) (assuming district courts applied Fair Sentencing Act when sentencing after its effective date)