United States v. Diaz
673 F. App'x 74
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Luis Diaz was convicted at trial of multiple drug offenses and three separate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) counts for using firearms in connection with drug trafficking; he was sentenced on one § 924(c) count to a consecutive 60‑month term and received a total sentence of 360 months.
- Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (effective Nov. 1, 2014) lowered base offense levels for many drug offenses, reducing Diaz’s total offense level by two.
- Diaz moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on the amended Guidelines range.
- The district court denied the motion after applying the two‑step Dillon framework: determined eligibility and then, considering § 3553(a) factors, declined to reduce the sentence.
- The district court relied on the trial record and the PSR showing Diaz’s possession/use of multiple firearms and a history of violent sexual assaults; it found Diaz posed a continued risk to public safety despite good prison conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Diaz was eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction after Amendment 782 | Diaz asserted he was eligible because Amendment 782 reduced his Guidelines range | Government did not dispute eligibility | Court and parties treated Diaz as eligible; eligibility reviewed de novo and not contested on appeal |
| Whether the district court clearly erred in assessing evidence of multiple firearm uses | Diaz argued the court erred by relying on convictions/record showing multiple § 924(c) counts when he was sentenced on only one firearm use | Court relied on trial record and PSR showing convictions for three § 924(c) counts and multiple firearm use | No clear error; court reasonably concluded multiple firearm use and public‑safety risk |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by weighing Diaz’s criminal history and age | Diaz argued court overemphasized his past criminal history and failed to give adequate weight to his age and good prison conduct | Court emphasized violent sexual‑assault history and considered § 3553(a) factors, concluding risk persisted | No abuse of discretion; court permissibly considered violent history and need to protect public |
| Whether the district court failed to consider applicable § 3553(a) factors | Diaz contended the court did not properly consider applicable factors favoring reduction | Court explicitly considered history, characteristics, criminal record, and public safety in denying reduction | Court acted within discretion and considered § 3553(a) factors; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (sets two‑step framework for § 3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Main, 579 F.3d 200 (review standard: de novo for eligibility)
- United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (district court discretion to deny reduction based on public‑safety/criminal‑history concerns)
- Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard articulated)
- United States v. Carr, 557 F.3d 93 (presumption that district court considered § 3553(a) absent contrary record)