United States v. Drummondo-Farias
1:12-cr-00174
| D. Haw. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Jacob Drummondo-Farias was convicted in 2013 of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute large quantities of methamphetamine, a second federal drug offense.
- He was sentenced to 324 months in prison, followed by a ten-year term of supervised release.
- Drummondo-Farias previously filed motions for post-conviction relief, including under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and for compassionate release; all were denied.
- He filed a pro se motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), citing Sentencing Guidelines Amendments 782 (drug quantity table changes) and 821 (zero-point offender reduction).
- He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel regarding an alleged plea deal not communicated by his attorney.
- The government opposed the motion, arguing he was ineligible for reductions under Amendment 821 and countered his ineffective assistance claim shouldn’t be addressed in this proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (USA) | Defendant's Argument (Drummondo-Farias) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for Amendment 782 reduction | Not opposed; applies if applicable | Amendment 782 applies, should reduce sentence | Eligible under Amendment 782; reduction granted |
| Eligibility for Amendment 821 reduction | Does not apply: criminal history and role in offense exclude | Amendment 821 applies, supports further reduction | Not eligible for 821: criminal history, role exclude |
| Consideration of ineffective assistance claim | Must be raised under § 2255, not appropriate here | Should consider attorney's failure to inform of plea deal | Not considered; outside scope of § 3582 proceeding |
| Degree of sentence reduction in light of § 3553(a) | Sentence should reflect aggravating factors and public danger | More reduction warranted in light of new guideline range | Sentence reduced to 288 months, not below |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (sets forth the two-step process for § 3582(c)(2) sentence reductions and limits such proceedings to guideline amendments)
- United States v. Navarro, 800 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2015) (clarifies that § 3582(c)(2) proceedings are not full resentencings)
- United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 1996) (distinguishes § 3582(c)(2) motions from § 2255 proceedings)