United States v. Eladio Marroquin-Medina
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5973
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Marroquin-Medina pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 1,000+ kg of marijuana and money laundering; PSI produced an offense level leading to an advisory range of 87–108 months (total offense level 29, CH I).
- At original sentencing the government moved under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for substantial assistance; the court granted a 3-level departure (to total offense level 26), producing a post-departure guideline range of 63–78 months and a 72-month sentence.
- Amendment 782 lowered the Drug Quantity Table by 2 levels; in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding the district court recalculated an amended guideline range of 70–87 months (offense level 27).
- Marroquin-Medina asked the court to apply a level-based comparable § 5K1.1 reduction (reduce offense level by 3 again to level 24 → 51–63 months; request 51 months).
- The government argued the Application Note to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 requires using a percentage-based method (apply the same percentage below the original range’s bottom), yielding a 58-month sentence; the district court applied the percentage method and reduced the sentence to 58 months.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit addressed whether § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) and its Application Note mandate the percentage-based method or permit other reasonable methodologies in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) and its Application Note require using only a percentage-based method to calculate a "comparable" substantial-assistance reduction in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding | Marroquin-Medina: district court may use a level-based approach (reduce offense level by same number of levels as original § 5K1.1 departure) | Government: Application Note 3 illustrates and thus requires the percentage-based approach; district court "must" use it | The court held the percentage method is permissible but not required; § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) does not foreclose other reasonable methods (e.g., level-based); district court erred procedurally by believing it had no discretion and the error was not harmless; vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir.) (standards on § 3582(c)(2) review)
- United States v. Fulford, 662 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir.) (Guidelines interpretation principles)
- United States v. Hayes, 762 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir.) (district court discretion in § 5K1.1 departure methodologies)
- United States v. Liberse, 688 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir.) (§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) exception covers government substantial-assistance motions)
- United States v. Smith, 568 F.3d 923 (11th Cir.) (limits on reducing below amended guideline range under § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A))