United States v. Gonzalez
674 F. App'x 90
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Rudi Gonzalez filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction after Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
- Gonzalez requested a reduction to 151 months; the district court granted a partial reduction to 180 months.
- The district court found Gonzalez eligible and discussed his prison conduct, completion of courses, lack of prior arrests or violence, and that his offense involved no violence.
- Gonzalez appealed, arguing the district court provided no reasons supporting the 180‑month term and that the factors the court cited favored a larger reduction.
- The Second Circuit reviewed eligibility de novo and the district court’s reduction for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in reducing Gonzalez’s sentence only to 180 months rather than 151 months under § 3582(c)(2) | The Government argued the district court properly considered § 3553(a) factors and public safety and exercised discretion in imposing 180 months | Gonzalez argued the court provided no reasons for the 180‑month sentence and only cited mitigating factors that supported a further reduction to 151 months | The court affirmed: the district court articulated relevant § 3553(a) considerations and permissibly weighed them; disagreement over weight is not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dillon, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (two‑step framework for § 3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (district court need not use specific verbal formulations when considering § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Christie, 736 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2013) (vacatur where district court provided no explanation for denying § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- United States v. Main, 579 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2009) (de novo review of eligibility for sentence reduction)
- United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for § 3582(c)(2) denial)
- Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (defines abuse of discretion boundaries)