United States v. Jaime Duenas-Rodriguez
706 F. App'x 215
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jaime Duenas-Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation and sentenced to 100 months imprisonment plus 3 years supervised release.
- He filed a second motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on Amendment 802 to the Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 changes).
- The district court denied relief because Amendment 802 was not made retroactive under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) and concluded the § 3553(a) factors would not warrant a reduction even if relief were authorized.
- The district court certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith; Duenas-Rodriguez moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to challenge that certification.
- On appeal, Duenas-Rodriguez also for the first time argued, invoking Mathis, that the 16-level enhancement under the 2013 § 2L1.2 was invalid because the state statutes were broader than the generic offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 802 authorizes a § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Amendment 802 applies and permits reduction | Amendment 802 is not retroactive under § 1B1.10(d) | Not retroactive; no eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) relief |
| Whether § 3553(a) factors would support a reduction if authorized | Even if eligible, factors could justify reduction | District court found factors do not warrant reduction | District court correctly found § 3553(a) would not support reduction |
| Whether a new Mathis-based challenge to the enhancement can be considered on § 3582(c)(2) motion | Mathis shows state statutes broader than generic offense; enhancement invalid | New theory raised on appeal; Mathis not an amendment to Guidelines and not retroactive for § 3582(c)(2) | Court declined to consider new theory on appeal; claim not proper under § 3582(c)(2) |
| Whether the appeal is taken in good faith for IFP purposes | Appeal raises arguable legal points | Appeal is frivolous because no nonfrivolous argument for relief exists | Appeal is frivolous; IFP denied and appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard for good-faith certification review of IFP appeals)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (appeal in good faith if legal points are arguable on the merits)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (limits on sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2) and requirement of retroactive Amendment)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (U.S. 2016) (categorical approach to comparing state statutes to generic offenses)
- Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 1999) (court may refuse to consider issues raised first on appeal)
- United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) denial)