United States v. Almonte-Reyes
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2791
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Heriberto Almonte-Reyes pleaded guilty in D.P.R. (Oct. 2012) to a heroin-import conspiracy; plea jointly recommended 102–120 months and requested concurrent sentencing with a pending Northern District of Georgia (N.D. Ga.) case.
- D.P.R. sentenced Almonte-Reyes to 120 months on July 1, 2013, specifying the term be served “consecutively to any term to be imposed in a pending case.”
- Almonte-Reyes moved for reconsideration to delete the consecutive-to-anticipated-federal-sentence language; the district court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
- After briefing, the N.D. Ga. later sentenced Almonte-Reyes to 87 months (Dec. 2013 plea; Oct. 17, 2014 sentencing) and ordered that sentence to run concurrently with the D.P.R. sentence.
- The central legal question: whether a federal court may lawfully order a federal sentence to run consecutively to another federal sentence that is anticipated but not yet imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a federal court may impose a sentence consecutive to an anticipated but not-yet-imposed federal sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) | Almonte-Reyes: the D.P.R. court lacked authority under § 3584(a) to order consecutivity to a future federal sentence | Government: the earlier court could order consecutive; any mootness or conflict can be resolved later (BOP, § 3582, or habeas) or by the later court altering effect | Court reversed: a federal court cannot lawfully order a sentence consecutive to an anticipated federal sentence; authority to decide belongs to the later sentencing court under § 3584(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012) (Supreme Court: § 3584(a) silent as to anticipated state sentences; recognized background common-law sentencing discretion and left open whether the same holds for anticipated federal sentences)
- United States v. Obey, 790 F.3d 545 (4th Cir. 2015) (held earlier federal court cannot impose consecutivity to an anticipated federal sentence)
- United States v. Montes-Ruiz, 745 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 2014) (held same as Obey; followed Setser and distinguished anticipated state sentences)
- United States v. Quintana-Gomez, 521 F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2008) (pre-Setser decision discussing limits on earlier courts imposing consecutivity to anticipated federal sentences)
- Odekirk v. Ryan, 85 F.2d 313 (6th Cir. 1936) (older precedent cited by government for proposition that later court’s intent controls when different courts impose sentences)
- United States v. Vidal-Reyes, 562 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2009) (statutory-interpretation standard and related sentencing authority discussion)