United States v. Delva
704 F. App'x 8
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Gesner Delva was convicted by jury of multiple federal narcotics offenses and sentenced to 293 months' imprisonment after a finding that he trafficked in at least 600 kg of cocaine.
- Delva sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on U.S.S.G. Amendment 782, which reduced base offense levels for drug quantities by two levels.
- Amendment 782 raised the quantity threshold for the top guideline level (level 38) from 150 kg to 450 kg of cocaine.
- The district court denied Delva’s § 3582(c)(2) motion because the original sentencing court had found Delva responsible for at least 600 kg, a quantity still placing him at level 38 after Amendment 782.
- Delva also moved for reconsideration; the district court denied that motion and he appealed both denials to the Second Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Delva is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 782 | Delva: Amendment 782 lowered his applicable Guidelines range and entitles him to a reduction | Government: Original sentencing found ≥600 kg, which keeps Delva at level 38 even after Amendment 782, so not eligible | Held: Not eligible — 600 kg keeps him at level 38 before and after the amendment |
| Whether the district court erred by denying a hearing to revisit drug-quantity findings | Delva: Court should have held a hearing to reassess quantity for § 3582 eligibility | Government: District court was bound by original sentencing finding and need not hold a hearing | Held: No error — Rios forbids inconsistent new findings; hearing unnecessary given prior 600 kg finding |
| Whether adopting the PSR required a new evidentiary inquiry | Delva: Adoption of PSR insufficient; court should independently assess quantity now | Government: Adoption of an unchallenged PSR is sufficient to support original findings | Held: Adoption of PSR is adequate where it furnishes facts for meaningful review; no new finding allowed |
| Whether reconsideration could change the § 3582 eligibility outcome | Delva: Motion to reconsider should have led to reconsideration of quantity and eligibility | Government: No basis for reconsideration because of controlling original finding | Held: Reconsideration denied; original conclusion stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Leonard v. United States, 844 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) ineligibility reviewed de novo)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (statutory framework for § 3582(c)(2) sentence reductions)
- United States v. Rios, 765 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2014) (district court may make new factual findings on § 3582 motions but cannot make findings inconsistent with the original sentencing court)
- United States v. Batista, 684 F.3d 333 (2d Cir. 2012) (district court satisfies fact-finding obligation by expressly adopting PSR findings when PSR permits meaningful appellate review)