United States v. Antonio Rodriguez-Soriano
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7755
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rodriguez-Soriano pled guilty in 2005 to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; his guideline calculation produced an offense level 32 and a range of 97–121 months, but a statutory mandatory minimum (life) applied because of two prior felony drug convictions.
- The government filed a substantial-assistance motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1; the district court granted it and imposed a 300-month sentence instead of life.
- In 2014 the Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 782, lowering certain drug offense levels by two levels (reducing Rodriguez-Soriano’s base level from 32 to 30); Amendment 780 clarifies how to treat guideline ranges for defendants sentenced below mandatory minimums via substantial-assistance motions.
- Rodriguez-Soriano moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782; the district court denied relief, finding his sentence was not "based on" the lowered guideline range.
- The parties (both defendant and government) urged remand, but the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the original sentence was in fact "based on" the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the record showed the district court imposed the 300-month term pursuant to the government’s substantial-assistance motion and a hypothetical guideline calculation unrelated to the original 97–121 month range, so § 3582(c)(2) relief was unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant is eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief when the Guidelines later lower a range that was calculated at sentencing | Rodriguez-Soriano: his sentence was "based on" the guideline range later lowered by Amendment 782 and thus eligible | Government: agrees he is eligible and urged remand (also invoked Amendment 780) | Held: Not eligible — sentence was not "based on" the lowered range because the court sentenced pursuant to the substantial-assistance motion and a separate hypothetical range |
| How to interpret "based on" in § 3582(c)(2) | Reduce if the guideline range was a relevant part of the judge’s analytic framework | Court must inquire into reasons for sentence; mere initial calculation is insufficient | Held: Apply Freeman/Davis framework — ‘‘based on’’ requires the guideline range to have played a meaningful role in imposing the sentence |
| Effect of Amendment 780 on eligibility inquiry | Rodriguez-Soriano: Amendment 780 makes his "applicable guideline range" lower and thus favors reduction | Government: concurs that Amendment 780 affects applicable-range determination under policy statements | Held: Amendment 780 only bears on the policy-statement/prisoner’s amended range prong, not the threshold "based on" inquiry; it does not make him eligible when the sentence was not based on that range |
| Proper source of inquiry for § 3582(c)(2) eligibility | Plaintiff: rely on guideline recalculation and policy statements | Court: examine sentencing record/transcript to see whether judge used the range in sentencing decision | Held: Court must review why the original sentence was imposed; transcript shows the guideline range played no role here |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (explains when a sentence is "based on" a guideline range and directs inquiry into judge's reasons)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (sets two-step § 3582(c)(2) framework: eligibility then § 3553(a) consideration)
- United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (adopts Freeman plurality approach; requires that the guideline range have played a meaningful role in the sentencing decision)
- In re Sealed Case, 722 F.3d 361 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (discusses distinct statutory requirements for § 3582(c)(2) eligibility)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts must calculate and may consider the Guidelines but may ultimately vary from them)