United States v. Hector Ramos
670 F. App'x 316
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Hector Ramos, a federal prisoner, moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
- The district court denied relief because Ramos had waived in his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement the right to seek reductions based on guideline or statutory changes.
- The district court certified the appeal was not taken in good faith and denied Ramos leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); Ramos challenged that certification by seeking IFP on appeal.
- The district court had accepted a stipulated (Rule 11(c)(1)(C)) sentence rather than sentencing Ramos based on an advisory guideline range or drug-quantity calculation in the presentence report.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether Ramos was eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief and whether the appeal raised non-frivolous legal points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ramos’s plea agreement waived § 3582(c)(2) relief | Waiver in plea agreement does not bar eligibility for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction when the guidelines are later lowered | Plea agreement expressly waived further reductions based on guideline/statutory changes | Court noted waiver but also found waiver unnecessary to decide because Ramos was ineligible on the merits |
| Whether a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) stipulated sentence can be the kind of sentence “based on a sentencing range” under § 3582(c)(2) | Ramos: eligible for reduction despite stipulated sentence accepted by court | Government: stipulated sentence was not based on a guideline range, so § 3582(c)(2) does not apply | Held: Stipulated Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence was not based on the advisory guideline range; Ramos ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief |
| Whether the district court’s order denying IFP sufficiently explained its reasons | Ramos argued the district court failed to provide written reasons for certifying the appeal frivolous | District court relied on its reasons for denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion when certifying the appeal frivolous | Held: Order was sufficient; explanation adequate under precedent |
| Whether the appeal was taken in good faith (i.e., raises non-frivolous legal points) | Ramos contended appeal raised arguable legal issues regarding eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) relief | Government contended appeal was frivolous because sentence derived from plea agreement, not a lowered guideline range | Held: Appeal frivolous; IFP denied and appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (court may deny IFP where appeal is frivolous and discusses certification standard)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (defines good-faith inquiry as whether appeal raises legal points arguable on their merits)
- Henderson v. United States, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for § 3582(c)(2) reductions; de novo for guideline interpretation)
- Sojourner T. v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27 (5th Cir. 1992) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)
- United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2009) (explains that § 3582(c)(2) applies when sentence was based on a subsequently lowered guideline range)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (U.S. 2011) (clarifies when a sentence is based on a guideline range and implications for relief)
- United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807 (5th Cir. 2016) (discusses application of § 3582(c)(2) to stipulated sentences and guideline-based reductions)