United States v. Cardoza, 790 F.3d 247

Cardoza pleaded guilty to a drug trafficking offense and was sentenced to 72 months in 2013.
Cardoza asserts ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial/legal representation issues.
He also contends Amendment 782 retroactively lowers his base offense level and warrants remand for resentencing.
District Court sua sponte reduced his sentence under § 3582(c)(2) after the appeal was filed.
Appellate review concludes the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence during ongoing appeal, but allows remand for ordinary Rule 12.1 proceedings to determine a new sentence.
Court remands to allow a proper modification order and subsequent notice to determine if the appeal should be dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ineffective assistance claims are reviewable on direct appeal	Cardoza: ineffective-assistance claims should be revisited	Cardoza argues trial counsel errors affected outcomes	Dismissed without prejudice to collateral attack
Whether district court could modify sentence under § 3582(c)(2) while appeal pending	Cardoza seeks remand for reduction under Amendment 782	District court lacked jurisdiction due to pending appeal	District court lacked jurisdiction to modify during appeal; remand permitted under Rule 12.1 for possible further proceedings
Whether Rule 12.1 provides a path to resolve the § 3582(c)(2) issue without mooting the appeal	Remand and modification order would resolve the issue	Remand appropriate to determine validity of reduction	Remand to district court under Rule 12.1; retain jurisdiction on appeal and notify Court after modification

United States v. Mala, 7 F.3d 1058 (1st Cir. 1993) (fact-specific ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal are inappropriate; must be raised in collateral proceedings)
United States v. Ofray-Campos, 534 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (illustrates Rule 12.1 and remand procedure when district court indicates possible sentence grant)