United States v. Cesar Valdez
696 F. App'x 675
5th Cir.2017Background
- Cesar Valdez and his brother Hector participated in a marijuana-smuggling conspiracy; Valdez organized transport from Del Rio and recruited subordinates, including arranging a forged police report through an Austin dispatcher.
- At trial Valdez was convicted of conspiracy and two aiding-and-abetting counts for large-scale marijuana distribution; the PSR initially attributed 3,509 kg marijuana and 80 kg cocaine to Valdez, producing a Guidelines range that yielded a 360‑month sentence.
- On direct appeal this court affirmed convictions but held the 80 kg cocaine was not attributable to Valdez, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing (United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2006)).
- At resentencing the PSR was amended to remove cocaine from Valdez’s relevant conduct; Valdez was resentenced to 280 months (within the amended Guidelines range of 235–293 months).
- Years later Valdez and the Government jointly moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782; the district court denied the joint motion and referenced “3,500 kilograms of marijuana and 80 kilograms of cocaine” in denying the reduction.
- Valdez appealed, arguing the district court plainly erred by relying on cocaine conduct that this court previously held was not attributable to him; the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for resentencing, finding plain error that affected substantial rights and the fairness of proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Valdez) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying the joint §3582(c)(2) motion | District court relied on clearly erroneous belief that 80 kg cocaine was attributable to Valdez, which it had earlier held was not his conduct | Government argued the court was describing the conspiracy generally, not attributing the cocaine to Valdez; on appeal it defended denial | Held for Valdez: plain error—district court clearly erred in referencing cocaine, which affected substantial rights and fairness; reversal and remand for resentencing |
| Whether plain‑error review applies given Valdez’s failure to object at the §3582 hearing | Valdez conceded no objection at hearing but urged plain‑error review because the court’s remark was clear and obvious error | Government did not contest plain‑error framework; argued error was not attributable to Valdez | Court applied plain‑error standard and found all four prongs satisfied (error, clear/obvious, affecting substantial rights, warrants remedy) |
| Whether the district court’s consideration of post‑sentencing conduct and §3553(a) factors justified denial despite amended Guidelines | Valdez argued §3553 factors and post‑sentencing conduct were before the court but denial rested on misattributed cocaine conduct | Government initially joined reduction motion but later defended denial on appeal citing seriousness of conduct | Court did not rule whether reduction warranted on remand; held denial cannot be based on cocaine conduct and remanded for reconsideration consistent with guidelines and §3553(a) |
| Whether the government’s change in position impacts remedy under plain‑error fourth prong | Valdez pointed to Government’s reversal (joint motion below, opposition on appeal) as undermining fairness | Government offered post‑hoc justification on appeal | Court viewed government’s 180‑degree shift and substantial disparity in sentence as factors supporting exercise of discretion to remedy error |
Key Cases Cited
- Valdez v. United States, 453 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2006) (prior panel decision removing cocaine from Valdez’s relevant conduct)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (two‑step §3582(c)(2) framework and application of §1B1.10)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error review framework)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (four‑prong plain‑error test and remedial discretion)
- United States v. Chapple, 847 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 2017) (application of §3582(c)(2) and amendment procedures)
- United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933 (5th Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing rulings)
- United States v. Escalante‑Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain‑error review for issues not raised below)
- United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010) (substantial‑rights inquiry in sentencing plain‑error context)
- United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2011) (error affecting sentence outcome establishes substantial rights)
- United States v. Torres, 856 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir. 2017) (government’s shift from joining reduction to opposing on appeal can warrant remedial relief)
- United States v. Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2016) (discussing when large guideline disparities do or do not warrant exercise of remedial discretion)