United States v. Arbaje-Diaz
699 F. App'x 42
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jorge H. Arbaje-Diaz, a former NYPD officer, pleaded guilty to two Hobbs Act robbery counts and a conspiracy to traffic in one or more kilograms of heroin; sentenced to 240 months.
- Arbaje-Diaz moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendments 782 and 788 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered base offense levels for most drug offenses.
- Parties and the district court agreed Arbaje-Diaz was eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction; the court calculated an amended Guidelines range of 188–235 months.
- The district court exercised its discretion under § 3582(c)(2) and § 3553(a) and denied a reduction, issuing a seven-page memorandum analyzing the § 3553(a) factors and referring to its original sentencing rationale.
- Arbaje-Diaz argued the court failed adequately to consider his history and characteristics, specifically the hardship from being designated to a distant facility (family unable to visit while confined in Louisiana); he later was transferred to Virginia.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to deny the reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a § 3582(c)(2) reduction after finding eligibility | Arbaje-Diaz: reduction warranted; district court failed to adequately consider his history and characteristics (family visitation hardship) under § 3553(a) | Government: district court properly considered § 3553(a) and permissibly denied relief despite eligibility | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; district court sufficiently considered § 3553(a) and prior sentencing rationale |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rios, 765 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) denial is abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion identified when decision rests on erroneous legal view or clearly erroneous factual assessment)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (district court may deny § 3582(c)(2) relief after assessing § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2010) (district court need not explicitly address every argument to show adequate § 3553(a) consideration)
- United States v. Wilson, 716 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2013) (affirming denial of sentence reduction where district court reasonably applied § 3553(a))
- United States v. Figueroa, 714 F.3d 757 (2d Cir. 2013) (same)