895 F.3d 1160
9th Cir.2018Background
- Buenrostro was convicted in 1996 of conspiring to manufacture >31 kg methamphetamine; he had prior felony drug convictions that triggered a statutory mandatory life sentence without release under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii).
- Sentenced to life (January 8, 1997); multiple postconviction efforts (initial § 2255, Rule 60(b), and requests for leave to file second/successive § 2255 motions) were denied by the courts and this court on appeal.
- In 2016 President Obama commuted Buenrostro’s life sentence to 360 months; the commutation did not vacate the original judgment of conviction.
- Buenrostro moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction, arguing the commutation effectively made him newly sentenced “based on a sentencing range” lowered by Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
- Separately he moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending the commutation created a new judgment and thus allowed him to bring ineffective-assistance claims without § 2255(h) gatekeeping (relying on Magwood).
- The district court denied both motions; the Ninth Circuit affirmed on both appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buenrostro is eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) after commutation | Buenrostro: commutation nullified the mandatory minimum, making his sentence effectively based on a Guidelines range lowered by Amendment 782 | Government: original sentence was imposed based on statutory mandatory minimum; commutation does not convert that into a Guidelines-based sentence | Held: Not eligible — original sentence was based on a statutory mandatory minimum, so § 3582(c)(2) does not apply |
| Whether the presidential commutation created a new judgment for § 2255 purposes (avoiding second-or-successive bar) | Buenrostro: commutation changed his sentence and thus created a new judgment allowing a new § 2255 challenge (Magwood) | Government: commutation is executive mitigation that does not legally invalidate or replace the judicially imposed judgment | Held: Commutation does not create a new judgment; § 2255 motion is second-or-successive and barred absent authorization |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (definition of sentenced “based on a sentencing range”)
- Koons v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1783 (statutory mandatory minimum displaces Guidelines range)
- Mullanix v. United States, 99 F.3d 323 (sentence governed by statutory minimum even when within Guidelines range)
- Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (second-in-time petition challenging a different judgment is not "second or successive")
- Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (pardons/commutations mitigate punishment but do not overturn judicial judgment)