United States v. Angel Ferrer
20-2874
| 3rd Cir. | Jul 9, 2021Background
- Angel Ferrer moved for a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act; the District Court denied the motion and Ferrer appealed.
- Ferrer was convicted for distributing over three kilograms of crack; before the Fair Sentencing Act that quantity triggered a 10‑year mandatory minimum (50 g threshold); the Fair Sentencing Act raised the threshold to 280 g.
- The First Step Act authorized courts to apply the Fair Sentencing Act’s reduced thresholds retroactively, but district courts retain discretion subject to limits (accurate guidelines calculation and consideration of § 3553(a) factors).
- Ferrer argued the District Court erred by failing to recite the amended statutory/guidelines ranges and by misweighing § 3553(a) factors (unwarranted disparity and disciplinary infractions vs. remedial purpose).
- The Third Circuit held any omission about reciting the ranges was harmless (the amended statutory range made Ferrer eligible and his guidelines range was unchanged) and affirmed that the District Court properly considered § 3553(a) factors, reasonably refusing relief to avoid unwarranted disparities and relying on disciplinary history among other factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by not reciting the amended statutory and guidelines ranges | Ferrer: Court failed to state the amended statutory/guidelines ranges, which is required | Court/Govt: Any omission was harmless because the revised statutory range plainly made Ferrer eligible and his guidelines range did not change | Harmless error; omission did not affect outcome |
| Whether the court failed to calculate the amended guidelines range correctly | Ferrer: Court didn’t make the accurate calculation called for by precedent | Court/Govt: The guidelines range under the amendment duplicated the original range, so calculation was effectively accounted for | No reversible error; requirement satisfied in substance |
| Whether the district court improperly weighed § 3553(a)(6) disparity concerns | Ferrer: Reducing his sentence wouldn't create an unjust disparity given First Step Act’s remedial purpose | Court/Govt: Reducing Ferrer’s sentence would make him better off than similarly situated post‑Act defendants, creating unwarranted disparity | Court reasonably declined relief to avoid unwarranted disparities |
| Whether the court gave improper weight to prison disciplinary infractions and insufficient weight to the Act’s remedial purpose | Ferrer: Court overemphasized infractions and underemphasized remedial purpose of the First Step Act | Court/Govt: Infractions were one valid factor among many; remedial purpose is honored by a careful § 3553(a) analysis | No abuse of discretion; infractions properly considered and § 3553(a) factors adequately addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Murphy, 998 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 2021) (district courts must accurately calculate amended guidelines range)
- United States v. Easter, 975 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2020) (review of First Step Act denials is for abuse of discretion; courts must consider § 3553(a) factors)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (harmless‑error standard for incorrect or omitted guideline‑range statements)
- United States v. Langford, 516 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (illustrates when guideline‑range errors are harmless)
- United States v. Jackson, 964 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2020) (courts should avoid creating unwarranted disparities when granting First Step Act relief)
- United States v. White, 984 F.3d 76 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (First Step Act’s remedial purposes are served through careful § 3553(a) consideration)