United States v. Jose Antonio Gonzalez-Murillo
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5793
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Gonzalez-Murillo was arrested in Mississippi with >4.6 kg meth and served ~13 months in Mississippi custody; he later pleaded guilty in federal court to a meth conspiracy charge.
- At the 2011 federal sentencing the district court treated the Mississippi custody as relevant conduct, subtracted 13 months from the federal guideline low-end, and announced that credit as a “departure” while also referencing U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b).
- The district court imposed 95 months (108–135 originally, minus 13 months), and the Statement of Reasons cited § 5G1.3(b) but also called the action a departure.
- After Amendment 782/788, Gonzalez-Murillo moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduced sentence; the new guideline low-end was 87 months (adjusted range 87–108).
- In the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding the district court reduced the term to 87 months but refused to apply the earlier 13-month credit because it treated that credit as a § 5K2.23 departure and concluded departures (other than for substantial assistance) cannot be reapplied in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.
- The Eleventh Circuit remanded because the controlling distinction depends on whether the Mississippi sentence was undischarged (triggering mandatory § 5G1.3(b) adjustment) or fully discharged (allowing only discretionary § 5K2.23 departure), a factual question not resolved in the record.
Issues
| Issue | Gonzalez-Murillo's Argument | Government/District Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court must credit prior state custody in a § 3582(c)(2) reduction when it previously awarded credit | The 13-month credit should apply to the reduced sentence because the district court already found the Mississippi time was relevant conduct and credited it (invoking § 5G1.3(b)) | If the prior credit was a § 5K2.23 departure, § 3582(c)(2) cannot reapply that departure (except for substantial-assistance departures), so the court lacked authority to reduce below the amended guideline minimum | Remanded to determine whether the state sentence was undischarged at the original sentencing; if undischarged, § 5G1.3(b) adjustment must be applied (resulting in 74 months); if discharged, the prior credit was a § 5K2.23 departure and cannot be reapplied in § 3582(c)(2) (resulting in 84 months as the lower bound) |
| Whether the district court’s characterization of its 2011 action as a “departure” controls | The label shouldn’t control; § 5G1.3(b)’s requirements (if met) mandate an adjustment that must be reapplied in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings | The district court and government treated the action as a departure, barring reapplication in § 3582(c)(2) | Court explained § 5G1.3(b) is an adjustment (not a departure) when its elements are met; labeling as a departure does not change that legal effect |
| What factual finding is necessary on remand | N/A — Gonzalez-Murillo needs the court to find whether the Mississippi sentence was fully discharged at the time of federal sentencing | Government contests reapplication if the sentence was discharged | Remand for a factual determination whether the Mississippi sentence was fully discharged at the time of the 2011 federal sentencing; this finding controls which guideline (§ 5G1.3(b) or § 5K2.23) governs credit |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. United States, 305 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2002) (de novo review of district court’s legal conclusions about § 3582(c)(2) authority)
- Knight v. United States, 562 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2009) (vacating where district court failed to credit prior custody under § 5G1.3)
- Hippolyte v. United States, 712 F.3d 535 (11th Cir. 2013) (requiring application of § 1B1.1(a)(8) — Parts B–G of Chapter Five — when computing amended guideline range under § 1B1.10)
- Frazier v. United States, 823 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2016) (discussing § 1B1.10 eligibility framework)
- Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 (1995) (explaining § 5G1.3’s purpose to coordinate sentences for related conduct)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (departure standard and limits under the Guidelines)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (two-step framework for § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)