United States v. Diaz
16-3909(L)
| 2d Cir. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Daniel Diaz pleaded guilty to a continuing criminal enterprise (21 U.S.C. § 848(a)) and to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); aggregate sentence 420 months (360 + mandatory consecutive 60).
- After the Sentencing Commission amended USSG § 2D1.1(c), Diaz’s Guidelines range for the CCE count dropped to 324–405 months.
- Diaz moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his 360-month CCE sentence based on the Guidelines amendment.
- The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) reduction, citing the seriousness of the offense (large-scale drug trafficking and two murders), Diaz’s history (absconding to start the conspiracy), and adverse post-sentencing institutional behavior (weapon possession, attempting to introduce drugs, disobedience).
- Diaz appealed, arguing (1) inadequate explanation for denying a reduction to the amended low end, (2) impermissible reliance on post-sentencing prison infractions already punished, and (3) failure to meaningfully consider the aggregate 420-month sentence in light of Dean v. United States. The Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court provided adequate reasons for denying a § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Diaz: court failed to explain why he deserved original Guidelines low-end but not amended low-end | Gov: court considered § 3553(a) factors, danger to public safety, and post-sentencing conduct | Affirmed — district court gave more than the minimal required explanation and permissibly weighed § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether the court erred by considering punished post-sentencing prison misconduct | Diaz: cannot rely on infractions already punished | Gov: prison conduct relevant to deterrence, public safety, and likelihood of recidivism | Affirmed — post-sentencing conduct permissibly considered in § 3582(c)(2) analysis |
| Whether the court had to meaningfully account for the mandatory consecutive § 924(c) sentence (aggregate 420 months) per Dean | Diaz: aggregate sentence makes the CCE term effectively reasonable and should be considered | Gov: Second Circuit precedent limits considering mandatory consecutive § 924(c) when calculating predicate term; alternatively, district court explicitly considered the aggregate sentence and would deny relief anyway | Affirmed — even assuming Dean affected Chavez, district court stated it would deny reduction regardless; decision stands |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion | Diaz: combination of above errors constituted abuse of discretion | Gov: court acted within discretion, considered relevant factors and record conduct | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion found |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Christie, 736 F.3d 191 (2d Cir.) (describing standard of review and minimal statement of reasons required)
- United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir.) (abuse of discretion standard for § 3582(c)(2) denials)
- United States v. Rivera, 662 F.3d 166 (2d Cir.) (district court may consider § 3553(a) factors in § 3582 reduction decisions)
- United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir.) (presumption that judge considered statutory sentencing factors absent contrary record evidence)
- United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir.) (same presumption of consideration of sentencing factors)
- United States v. Romano, 794 F.3d 317 (2d Cir.) (appellate deference to district court’s weighing of sentencing factors)
- United States v. Figueroa, 714 F.3d 757 (2d Cir.) (post-sentencing prison conduct may inform § 3582(c)(2) decisions)
- United States v. Chavez, 549 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.) (court may not consider mandatory consecutive § 924(c) sentence when calculating predicate term)
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (Sup. Ct.) (addresses consideration of § 924(c) consecutive sentences in determining reasonableness)