United States v. Alejandro Sosa, Jr.
691 F. App'x 184
5th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Alejandro Sosa, Jr., federal prisoner, moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
- Sosa was serving concurrent 108-month terms; parties agreed Amendment 782 produced a new guidelines range of 57–71 months.
- The district court discussed the new range but stated Sosa had originally received an above-guidelines sentence and suggested he might not be entitled to a direct reduction.
- The court emphasized Sosa’s lengthy criminal history and prior robbery, considered his postconviction conduct, and declined to reduce the sentence to 88 months.
- Sosa appealed, arguing the district court erred in (1) finding him ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief due to his original above-guidelines sentence and (2) failing to reevaluate the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) relief after Amendment 782 | Sosa: court wrongly found him ineligible because he had an above-guidelines original sentence | Government: parties and district court treated Sosa as eligible based on the agreed amended range | Court: no clear or obvious error; eligibility was implied by agreement on new range |
| Impact of district court's statement about above-guidelines original sentence | Sosa: the statement showed the court denied relief outright and affected his substantial rights | Government: any unclear statement did not change outcome given court’s reliance on new range and criminal history | Court: even assuming arguendo error, Sosa failed to show a reasonable probability of a lower sentence; no reversal |
| Reevaluation of § 3553(a) factors | Sosa: court failed to reevaluate sentencing factors when considering the reduction motion | Government: court discussed relevant factors including criminal history and postconviction conduct | Court: no clear or obvious error; court expressly considered § 3553(a) factors and declined to reweigh on appeal |
| Plain-error review standard applied | Sosa: contends district errors warrant relief despite not raising them below | Government: errors, if any, are not clear, do not affect substantial rights, and do not undermine proceedings | Court: applied plain-error review and found no reversible error; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273 (5th Cir.) (plain-error standard explanation)
- United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933 (5th Cir.) (eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) relief can be implied from court and parties’ treatment)
- United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir.) (requirements for reevaluating § 3553(a) factors on resentencing)
- United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322 (5th Cir.) (consideration of postconviction conduct under § 3553(a))
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (appellate review should not reweigh sentencing factors)
- United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir.) (appellate limitations on reweighing sentencing factors)