841 F.3d 867
10th Cir.2016Background
- In 2013 Vega Amado was arrested with large quantities of methamphetamine, cocaine, cash, multiple firearms (including a grenade), and ammunition; charged in a five-count indictment and pled guilty to Count 1 (drug) and Count 5 (illegal reentry) under a plea agreement that waived his right to move for sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
- At sentencing his guideline offense level produced a range of 235–293 months; the court imposed 240 months on the drug count and a concurrent 120 months on reentry.
- Amendment 782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014) reduced drug base offense levels; application to Vega would lower his range to 188–235 months, prompting him to seek § 3582(c)(2) relief despite his plea waiver.
- The district court denied Vega’s first § 3582(c)(2) motion (no explanation). Vega appealed; while that appeal was pending he filed a second § 3582(c)(2) motion after the Government purportedly withdrew its opposition.
- The district court, invoking Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a), treated the second filing as a motion to reconsider, found it untimely under this circuit’s rule that reconsideration must be within the appeal period, and denied it; Vega appealed again.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of the first motion based on the valid plea waiver, vacated the denial of the second motion, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the second motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (because the notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction and Rule 37 did not apply to the untimely motion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vega’s plea waiver bars a § 3582(c)(2) motion based on a future Sentencing Commission amendment | Government: Waiver is enforceable; covers § 3582(c)(2) motions | Vega: Could not knowingly waive a right that depended on a future amendment (Amendment 782) | Waiver valid and enforceable; first § 3582(c)(2) motion denied |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate Vega’s second § 3582(c)(2) motion while his appeal from the first denial was pending | Government: District court retained authority under Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a) to act | Vega: The second filing was a new motion because Government withdrew opposition | District court lacked jurisdiction: second motion was untimely (not within appeal period), so Rule 37 did not apply; dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction required |
| Whether the second filing was a true new motion or merely a motion to reconsider | Government: Characterized as new because opposition withdrawn | Vega: Labeled as a new motion, not reconsideration | Court properly treated it as a motion to reconsider (substance over label); timeliness requirement made it untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (plea waivers of appellate and collateral rights enforceable when knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2011) (motion for reconsideration of § 3582(c)(2) denial must be brought within the time for appeal)
- United States v. Kurtz, 819 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2016) (discussing application of Amendment 782 reductions)
- United States v. Battles, 745 F.3d 436 (10th Cir. 2014) (generally addressing divestiture of district court jurisdiction by a notice of appeal)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (indicates district court may deny or certify it would grant a motion while appeal pending)
- Andersen v. United States, 298 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2002) (substance controls characterization of post-judgment motions)
- Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000) (standards for motions for reconsideration)
- United States v. Wenger, 58 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. 1995) (noting plea waivers routinely encompass unanticipated developments)