United States v. Jose Avalos Banderas
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9992
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2010 Jose Banderas was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846.
- At sentencing the district court applied a two-level upward adjustment for obstruction of justice (USSG § 3C1.1) based on threats to prospective witnesses and sentenced Banderas at the top of the then-guideline range (292–365 months).
- On collateral review in 2016 Banderas moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782, which lowered his total offense level from 38 to 36 and produced an amended guideline range of 235–293 months.
- Banderas asked for 235 months, citing post-sentencing rehabilitation, age, and likely removal as a Mexican citizen; the government sought the top of the amended range because of violent history and public-safety concerns.
- The district court granted a reduction but kept the sentence at 293 months (top of amended range), reasoning Banderas remained "potentially a very dangerous person." Banderas appealed claiming abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a greater § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Banderas: court should have reduced sentence further (to bottom of amended range) based on post-sentencing rehabilitation, age, and citizenship | Government: court properly limited reduction because of violent history and danger to community | No abuse of discretion; affirmed |
| Whether the court improperly re-weighed factors already reflected in the guidelines | Banderas: court double-counted public-safety factors already accounted for in the guideline range | Government: court may consider background, character, conduct when choosing sentence within range | Court may consider those factors; did not err |
| Whether the court erred by giving insufficient weight to post-sentencing rehabilitation | Banderas: rehabilitation warranted greater reduction | Government: rehabilitation is discretionary and can be weighed against aggravating conduct | Post-sentencing rehabilitation is permissive, not mandatory; district court acted within discretion |
| Whether imposing amended sentence at top of range was disproportionate to original sentence | Banderas: reduced-range sentence should be more proportionate to initial reduction | Government: original and amended sentences at top of range are permissible | Courts generally act within discretion by imposing amended sentence proportionate to initial sentence; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Banderas, [citation="411 F. App'x 932"] (8th Cir.) (prior appeal affirming original sentence)
- United States v. Denton, 821 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) reductions is abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Powers, 828 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. 2016) (amended sentence should be proportionate to initial sentence)
- Cruzado-Laureano v. United States, 527 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 2008) (courts may consider background, character, and conduct when choosing sentence within guideline range)
- United States v. Hernandez-Marfil, 825 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2016) (post-sentencing rehabilitation is a permissive factor in § 3582 reductions)