United States v. Hernandez
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13186
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hernandez was convicted in 1998 of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution counts for cocaine base and related substances; PSR attributed 32.5 kg of crack cocaine to him based on conspiratorial activity.
- District court adopted the PSR’s 32.5 kg finding and held the quantity exceeded the then-highest offense level threshold for crack, resulting in a life sentence.
- Amendment 706 (effective 2007) retroactively lowered crack/powder disparities, but only up to 4.5 kg, not applicable to more than 4.5 kg.
- Hernandez filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion in 2008 for sentence reduction consistent with the amendment; the district court denied, and Hernandez appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirms, holding the district court did not abuse discretion because Hernandez was responsible for more than 4.5 kg, preserving the original offense level and sentence.
- A modification proceeding cannot relitigate the original sentencing determination or reweigh the quantity finding once the district court adopted the PSR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) authorizes modification given Amendment 706’s 4.5 kg cap | Hernandez argues amendment reduces his offense level and warrants modification | Hernandez contends the altered guidelines should reduce his sentence | No abuse of discretion; 32.5 kg exceeds the amended threshold; no modification. |
| Whether the district court could reexamine the drug quantity in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding | Hernandez seeks re-litigation of quantity | Court should not relitigate sentencing issues in § 3582(c)(2) | Not cognizable; modification not a vehicle to relitigate quantity; district court acted within authority. |
| Whether district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on drug quantity | Ambiguity in PSR could justify a hearing | No procedural entitlement to an evidentiary hearing given ample record | Affirmed denial of evidentiary hearing; no abuse of discretion. |
| Standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) decisions | Defer to district court’s application of amendments | Abuse-of-discretion standard governs modification decision | Reviewed for abuse of discretion; district court’s decision affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (limits § 3582(c)(2) proceedings to a circumscribed two-step inquiry)
- Shaw v. United States, 30 F.3d 26 (5th Cir. 1994) (§ 3582(c)(2) not a vehicle to relitigate sentencing issues)
- Whitebird v. United States, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 1995) (§ 3582(c)(2) not for collateral attack on sentence)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (see above)
- United States v. Burns, 526 F.3d 852 (5th Cir. 2008) (conversion of powder to crack if foreseeable)
- United States v. Woods, 581 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2009) (at least 4.5 kg supports maximum penalty)
- United States v. Moore, 582 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2009) (finding more than 4.5 kg compatible with original finding)
- United States v. Towe, 26 F.3d 614 (5th Cir. 1994) (distinguishable; evidentiary hearing not necessary here)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (risk/implications of sentencing factors under loan)