United States v. Humberto Rivera-Moreno, 692 F. App'x 305

In 2004 a jury convicted Humberto Rivera-Moreno of conspiracy to distribute large quantities of cocaine, methamphetamine, and cocaine base (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846) and a § 924(c) firearms offense; he received consecutive sentences (292 months + 60 months).
In 2009 a retroactive Guidelines amendment reduced his conspiracy sentence to 235 months; the firearm sentence remained consecutive.
In 2016 Rivera-Moreno moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for an additional reduction to 188 months based on another retroactive Guidelines amendment; the government agreed he was eligible but opposed reduction on discretionary grounds.
The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion, citing § 3553(a)(2)(C) public-safety concerns and Rivera-Moreno’s prison disciplinary history (five reports, including assault and gang-related fighting), criminal history, and prior deportation/re‑entry.
Rivera-Moreno argued the court overstated the danger, cited rehabilitation efforts, and noted he would be deported upon release; the court found deportation unreliable protection given his history of illegal reentry.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reduction after weighing § 3553(a) factors and post‑sentencing conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rivera-Moreno was entitled to a § 3582(c)(2) reduction as a matter of right	Rivera-Moreno: eligible for reduction to 188 months under amended Guidelines	Government: conceded eligibility but opposed discretionary reduction	Court: Eligible but not entitled as a matter of right; reduction discretionary
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying reduction based on public-safety concerns	Rivera-Moreno: court overstated public-safety risk; pointed to rehabilitation and programs completed	Government: district court properly weighed criminal history, disciplinary incidents, gang involvement, and danger to public	Court: No abuse of discretion; district court reasonably relied on § 3553(a) factors and post‑sentencing misconduct
Whether anticipated deportation undercuts public-safety concerns	Rivera-Moreno: deportation upon release means reduced risk to U.S. public	Government: prior illegal reentry and committing instant offense on probation show deportation not reliable	Court: Agreed deportation was not a guarantee of protection; district court may discount that argument

United States v. Rivera-Moreno, [citation="161 F. App'x 622"] (8th Cir. 2006) (prior appeal and convictions summarized)
United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard: review denial of § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Hernandez-Marfil, 825 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2016) (eligibility for reduction does not create entitlement)
United States v. Parker, 762 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2014) (district court may consider rehabilitation but is not required to reduce sentence)
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (district courts may consider post‑sentencing rehabilitation)
United States v. Ruelas-Mendez, 556 F.3d 655 (8th Cir. 2009) (no abuse where court gave less weight to mitigating factors)