United States v. Alex Guerrero
946 F.3d 983
| 7th Cir. | 2020Background
- Alex Guerrero, a former Chicago police officer, pleaded guilty in 2013 to RICO, drug conspiracy, Hobbs Act interference, and a § 924(c) firearms count; guideline calculations produced an offense level of 43 (life) for the first three counts, plus a consecutive 60 months for the firearms count.
- Prosecutors recommended a total 228-month sentence (168 + 60) under a Rule 11(c)(1)(B) plea after Guerrero provided substantial assistance; the district court accepted this recommendation and described the reduction as an eight-level departure (six levels for 5K1.1 substantial assistance plus two levels for "other factors").
- Amendment 782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014) retroactively reduced most drug offense levels by two; Guerrero sought relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) beginning with a July 2015 pro se letter requesting appointed counsel to pursue a "drug minus 2" resentencing.
- The district court recharacterized Guerrero’s 2015 letter as a § 3582(c)(2) motion, denied relief on the ground the two-level amendment produced no benefit given the court’s view of the original departures, and did not warn Guerrero before recharacterizing his pro se filing.
- Guerrero filed a counseled § 3582(c)(2) motion in 2018 (also invoking Hughes); the district court denied it as an impermissible successive motion and held Hughes inapplicable. The Seventh Circuit vacated that denial and remanded for full consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hughes applies to nonbinding Rule 11(c)(1)(B) plea | Hughes does not govern; Guerrero remained eligible for § 3582(c)(2) because his sentence was based on the Guidelines | Hughes applies only to binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) pleas and thus does not help Guerrero | Hughes is inapplicable; Rule 11(b)/(1)(B) plea defendants can seek § 3582(c)(2) relief when Guidelines affected the sentence |
| Whether the district court could recharacterize Guerrero’s July 2015 pro se letter as a § 3582(c)(2) motion without warning | Court should not recharacterize without notifying and giving the prisoner chance to withdraw or amend (per Castro) | District court treated the letter as a motion and proceeded on the merits | Recharacterization without Castro-style warnings was improper; the 2015 letter did not count as Guerrero’s § 3582(c)(2) bite |
| Whether Guerrero’s 2018 counseled motion was an impermissible successive § 3582(c)(2) motion | 2018 motion was permissible because the 2015 filing was not a valid § 3582(c)(2) motion | 2018 motion was successive and barred by Beard/Redd (one bite per retroactive amendment) | 2018 motion was not successive here; the district court erred in barring it due to the earlier improper recharacterization |
| Whether Amendment 782 could meaningfully reduce Guerrero’s sentence given his prior downward departure for substantial assistance | Amendment 782 can be applied and the court may impose a "comparably" below-guideline sentence under § 1B1.10(b)(2) respecting prior departures | District court concluded the two-level reduction would be neutralized by earlier two-level departure and thus no relief available | Amendment 782 can be considered; district court misapplied § 1B1.10 and must reconsider in its discretion on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (courts must warn pro se litigants before recharacterizing filings as first § 2255 motions)
- Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018) (§ 3582(c)(2) relief can apply where a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) binding plea was based on the Guidelines)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) is a narrow exception; original guideline decisions generally remain intact)
- United States v. Beard, 745 F.3d 288 (7th Cir. 2014) (one opportunity per retroactive Guideline amendment under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2011) (limits on further revision after a district court’s § 3582(c)(2) decision)
- United States v. Foster, 706 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2013) (district courts are not required to appoint counsel for § 3582(c)(2) motions)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (context on plea-based sentencing issues cited by Hughes)