United States v. Gonzalez-Ramos
690 F. App'x 610
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jose Bernardo Gonzalez-Ramos, a federal prisoner, proceeds pro se and appeals denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence modification and appointment of counsel.
- He pleaded guilty on September 23, 2014, to one count of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),(b)(2) and was sentenced to 37 months’ imprisonment on January 7, 2015.
- Amendment 802 to the Sentencing Guidelines became effective November 1, 2016, reducing certain enhancements under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).
- The district court denied the motion, ruling Amendment 802 is not retroactive because it is not listed in § 1B1.10(d).
- On appeal, Gonzalez-Ramos argues a different issue regarding jail credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); the panel notes lack of preservation below and does not consider it.
- The panel affirms the district court’s denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of Amendment 802 under § 3582(c)(2) | Gonzalez-Ramos seeks relief based on Amendment 802 | Amendment 802 lowers ranges but is not retroactive since listed in § 1B1.10(d) is absent | Amendment 802 not retroactive; no § 3582(c)(2) relief |
| Preservation of jail-credit claim under § 3585(b) | Claims improper jail credit were raised on appeal | Issue not preserved below | Issue not considered due to lack of preservation |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. v. Boyd, 721 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 2013) (sentencing-modification generally not available after imposition)
- In re Walker, 959 F.2d 894 (10th Cir. 1992) (non-preserved issues ordinarily not considered on appeal)
- United States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2005) (preservation requirement governs appellate review)