United States v. Jeremy Rodriguez
667 F. App'x 355
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2004 Jeremy Rodriguez pleaded guilty to: being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)), possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and three federal drug offenses.
- The PSR designated Rodriguez both a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); the career-offender Guidelines range would have been 262–327 months.
- The District Court varied downward and imposed 180 months (mandatory minimum) on the § 922(g) count, consecutive 60 months on the § 924(c) count, total 240 months; drug counts concurrent.
- In 2015 Rodriguez moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 (two-level reduction for many drug offense base levels).
- The District Court denied relief, concluding Amendment 782 did not lower Rodriguez’s applicable Guidelines range because his range was determined by the career-offender designation and mandatory minimums; rehearing denied. Rodriguez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodriguez is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on Amendment 782 | Amendment 782 lowered drug offense levels applicable to his convictions, so his sentence should be reduced | The applicable guideline range was set by the career-offender § 4B1.1 designation, which Amendment 782 does not alter | Denied — Amendment 782 does not lower the "applicable guideline range" because career-offender range, determined under § 4B1.1, remains unchanged |
| Whether mandatory minimums preclude a § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Rodriguez seeks reduction notwithstanding mandatory minima | Mandatory minimum sentences on firearms counts prevent a below-minimum reduction | Denied — mandatory minimums on firearms counts bar reducing the sentence below those minima |
| Whether Johnson v. United States provides a separate basis for relief here | Rodriguez asked the court to consider Johnson (voiding ACCA’s residual clause) as a basis for relief | Johnson is not a proper basis for relief under § 3582(c)(2), and Rodriguez’s priors were serious drug offenses, not violent felonies | Not reached on § 3582(c)(2) — Johnson is not a basis for § 3582(c)(2) relief; Rodriguez appears ineligible because his priors were drug offenses, not ACCA violent felonies |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard of review for Guidelines interpretation and § 3582(c)(2) motions)
- United States v. Flemming, 723 F.3d 407 (3d Cir. 2013) ("applicable guideline range" for § 3582(c)(2) is the pre-departure/variance range, e.g., career-offender range)
- Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2015) (standard of review for reconsideration motions)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutional; court noted Johnson is not a basis for § 3582(c)(2) relief here)