United States v. CARABALLO
2:09-cr-00474
E.D. Pa.May 19, 2025Background
- Joseph Capparella pled guilty in 2009 to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, and related offenses, for his role in the Caraballo Drug Trafficking Organization (DTO).
- He was sentenced in December 2010 to 240 months (20 years) imprisonment, the mandatory minimum at the time, due to a prior drug felony conviction.
- In 2022, Capparella's first motion for sentence reduction based on medical conditions and changes under the First Step Act was denied.
- In 2024, Capparella filed a second motion for sentence reduction, arguing that recent legal and guideline changes render his sentence "unusually long" and that guideline amendments lower his criminal history category.
- The government opposed, citing Third Circuit precedent that relevant changes in law are not retroactive, rendering Capparella ineligible for a reduced sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Capparella's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Capparella's sentence "unusually long" under new §1B1.13? | His sentence (20 years) would be 15 years if sentenced today due to First Step Act. | Changes to § 841(b)(1) are nonretroactive and not extraordinary. | Not unusually long under prevailing law. |
| Does the amendment to criminal history "status points" apply? | Amendment 821 lowers his criminal history category, so his guideline range should drop. | Amendment 821 doesn’t affect mandatory minimum sentences like his. | Cannot apply due to mandatory minimum. |
| Are nonretroactive changes grounds for compassion release? | Change in law creates a gross disparity, making release appropriate. | Third Circuit precedent bars using nonretroactive changes for eligibility. | Cannot be considered for this purpose. |
| Should the court seal Capparella's motion for reduction? | Contains sensitive, confidential information. | No compelling reason to override standard openness. | Motion to seal is denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rutherford, 120 F.4th 360 (3d Cir. 2024) (nonretroactive statutory changes cannot support eligibility for compassionate release under § 3582)
- United States v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255 (3d Cir. 2021) (clarifies that nonretroactive statutory changes cannot be considered in compassionate release motions)
- United States v. Stewart, 22-2770 (3d Cir. 2023) (sequence for considering compassionate release: extraordinary and compelling reasons, then § 3553(a) factors)