United States v. Carlos Olvera
702 F. App'x 201
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Carlos Gustavo Olvera pled guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The PSR applied U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1, which instructs use of the base offense level for the underlying offense (here, a drug conspiracy) when that level can be determined.
- The PSR relied on the Drug Quantity Table and attributed 154 kg of cocaine to Olvera, producing a base offense level of 38; after a 2-level acceptance reduction the PSR calculated an offense level of 36.
- At sentencing the district court found Olvera responsible for 80 kg of cocaine, reducing the drug-derived base level to 36 and, after the acceptance reduction, set the total offense level at 34 (criminal history III), with a Guidelines range of 188–235 months. The court sentenced Olvera to 210 months; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Amendment 782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014) retroactively lowered Drug Quantity Table base levels by two; had it applied at sentencing Olvera’s total offense level would have been 32 and the Guidelines range 151–188 months.
- Olvera moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782; the district court denied relief as inapplicable to money-laundering convictions. Olvera appealed; the government declined to brief, effectively waiving the timeliness issue.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded Amendment 782 did apply because Olvera’s money-laundering sentence was determined entirely by reference to the Drug Quantity Table, vacated the district court’s denial, and remanded for the district court to consider any § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Olvera’s appeal from the § 3582(c)(2) denial was timely | Olvera’s filing should be treated as timely or any untimeliness waived | District court’s denial became final; appeal may be untimely | Government waived timeliness by not briefing; court reached merits |
| Whether Amendment 782 makes Olvera eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2) | Olvera argued Amendment 782 lowered the Guidelines range that produced his sentence because § 2S1.1 ties money‑laundering offense level to the Drug Quantity Table | District court held Amendment 782 inapplicable to money‑laundering sentences under § 2S1.1 | Court held Amendment 782 applies where § 2S1.1 sentence was determined solely by drug‑quantity levels; remanded for § 3553(a) consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (explaining the two‑step § 3582(c)(2) inquiry and § 1B1.10 procedures)
- United States v. Torres, 856 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding Amendment 782 applies where a § 2S1.1 money‑laundering offense level was entirely dependent on the Drug Quantity Table)
- United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2010) (standards for de novo review of step one eligibility)
- United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of step two § 3553(a) decision)
- United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2007) (14‑day criminal appeal period is nonjurisdictional and may be waived)
- United States v. Cooley, 590 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2009) (appeal waiver in plea agreement does not bar appeals challenging denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief)