United States v. Chavira-Nunez
689 F. App'x 896
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2012 a jury convicted Joel Chavira-Nuñez of distributing >50 grams methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii)) and distributing cocaine; district court imposed concurrent 120‑month sentences — the statutory mandatory minimum.
- Chavira‑Nuñez appealed a denial of a safety‑valve adjustment; this court affirmed.
- He filed a § 2255 ineffective‑assistance claim in 2013, which was denied and for which a COA was denied.
- He moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) seeking a sentence reduction, arguing (inter alia) that Guidelines are advisory, his deportable status limits program access, pending legislation (H.R. 3382) might reduce mandatory minima, and Amendment 782 should apply.
- The district court denied the § 3582(c) motion; Chavira‑Nuñez appealed. The Tenth Circuit agreed the district court lacked authority to reduce the sentence, vacated the denial, and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; IFP request denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may entertain ineffective‑assistance claim via § 3582(c) | Chavira‑Nuñez asserted trial counsel was ineffective for not recommending a plea | Relief for ineffective assistance belongs in collateral § 2255 proceedings, not § 3582(c) | Court lacks jurisdiction to consider ineffective‑assistance claim under § 3582(c); claim must be brought via § 2255 (if allowed) |
| Whether Amendment 782 entitles him to a § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Amendment 782 lowered Guidelines base offense levels, so he is eligible for a reduction | His sentence is governed by a statutory mandatory minimum (21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii)), which Amendment 782 did not alter | Court lacks jurisdiction to grant a § 3582(c)(2) reduction because the statutory mandatory minimum controls; amendment does not lower his applicable range |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lucero, 713 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard of review and limits on § 3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008) (scope of district court authority under § 3582(c))
- United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539 (10th Cir. 1997) (ineffective‑assistance claims not cognizable under § 3582(c))
- United States v. Trujeque, 100 F.3d 869 (10th Cir. 1996) (§ 3582 relief is limited to statutory sentencing issues and not a vehicle for collateral attack)
- United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2013) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction required rather than denying on the merits)