United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 933 F.3d 1126

Consolidated appeals by 23 defendants seeking sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) after the Sentencing Commission made Amendment 782 (two‑level reduction in drug offense base offense levels) retroactive.
Each defendant had originally received a sentence below the amended Guidelines range because of a downward variance or departure (not based on substantial assistance).
District courts denied § 3582(c)(2) motions, relying on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) which prohibits reducing a sentence to below the amended Guidelines range except for substantial‑assistance departures (§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B)).
Defendants argued Padilla‑Diaz (9th Cir.) should be displaced by the Supreme Court’s later decision in Hughes and related decisions (Koons), claiming § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) unlawfully blocks reductions for otherwise eligible defendants.
The Ninth Circuit panel reviewed for abuse of discretion and considered whether Padilla‑Diaz remains good law in light of Hughes and Koons.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hughes undermines Padilla‑Diaz so Padilla‑Diaz is no longer binding	Hughes requires § 3582(c)(2) be applied to any sentence "based on" the Guidelines, overruling Padilla‑Diaz	Padilla‑Diaz conflicts with Hughes and should be rejected under Gammie	Padilla‑Diaz and Hughes are reconcilable; Padilla‑Diaz remains binding
Whether § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) conflicts with § 3582(c)(2) (i.e., policy statement may not make eligible defendants ineligible)	Policy statements cannot limit statutory § 3582(c)(2) eligibility; Hughes/Koons support broader eligibility	The statute explicitly conditions reductions on being "consistent with applicable policy statements," so § 1B1.10 may limit eligibility	§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) is consistent with § 3582(c)(2) and valid here
Equal protection challenge to § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)	Policy treats similarly situated defendants differently (irrationally)	Policy serves rational objectives (simplicity, incentivizing cooperation)	Padilla‑Diaz already upheld the policy under rational‑basis review; challenge foreclosed
Whether defendants with downward variances (not for substantial assistance) are eligible for § 3582(c)(2) reductions	Defendants eligible because original sentences were "based on" Guidelines reduced by Amendment 782	§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) bars reductions when original sentence was below amended range unless based on substantial assistance	Defendants ineligible under § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A); denials affirmed

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 1B1.10 is binding in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings; such proceedings are acts of lenity)
Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (fractured decision on whether Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea sentences are "based on" Guidelines)
Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018) (Type‑C plea sentences are "based on" Guidelines when court relied on the Guidelines framework)
Koons v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1783 (2018) (policy statements cannot expand § 3582(c)(2) to make ineligible defendants eligible)
United States v. Padilla‑Diaz, 862 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2017) (upheld § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) and its substantial‑assistance exception; remains binding in Ninth Circuit)