United States v. Frank Tijerina, III
670 F. App'x 243
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Frank Tijerina III was sentenced to concurrent 262-month terms for methamphetamine distribution and conspiracy; sentence was based on a PSR finding he was accountable for a marijuana-equivalent of 183,444.48 kg and a base offense level 38.
- Tijerina moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines (lowered drug offense levels).
- At original sentencing the district court adopted the PSR "as modified," reduced one role-based point, overruled Tijerina’s objections to drug-quantity findings, and stated that under any scenario the applicable offense level would remain 38.
- The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding Amendment 782 did not lower Tijerina’s guideline range.
- Tijerina argued the court erred by (1) refusing an evidentiary hearing because drug-quantity was not determined, and (2) that an alleged conflict between the PSR and the court’s oral statement required giving effect to the oral (lower) sentence.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding no factual dispute requiring a hearing, that the PSR quantities remained applicable under Amendment 782, and that no written/oral sentencing conflict existed that § 3582(c)(2) could remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on a § 3582(c)(2) motion | Tijerina: original court never fixed drug quantity; facts disputed, so hearing required | Gov: no material factual dispute; transcript and PSR show adopted quantity and offense level | No hearing required; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Amendment 782 lowered applicable guideline range | Tijerina: Amendment could reduce offense level if attributed quantity uncertain | Gov: PSR quantity still yields base level 38 even after Amendment 782 | Amendment 782 did not lower Tijerina’s guideline range; no relief under § 3582(c)(2) |
| Whether "as modified" adoption created ambiguity about adopted PSR findings | Tijerina: "as modified" shows court didn’t fully adopt PSR drug quantities | Gov: "as modified" referred only to a role-point adjustment; court expressly overruled quantity objections | No ambiguity; court adopted PSR quantities and overruled objections |
| Whether an oral sentencing statement controls over written PSR or judgment | Tijerina: oral remark implies lower finding and should control written record | Gov: PSR is advisory; no conflict between oral statement and written judgment; § 3582(c)(2) not for collateral attack on original sentencing error | No controlling conflict; oral statement did not override the adopted PSR or written judgment; § 3582(c)(2) not appropriate vehicle to relitigate original sentencing errors |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 1995) (standards for § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709 (5th Cir. 2011) (hearings may be necessary when facts relevant to a § 3582 motion are in dispute)
- United States v. Loe, 248 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2001) (oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written order)
- United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2012) (PSR is advisory and not an order)
- United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26 (5th Cir. 1994) (§ 3582(c)(2) is not a vehicle to challenge errors in the original sentencing)