United States v. Lauro Aguilar-Canche, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15912

In 2008 Aguilar-Canche pleaded guilty in two consolidated federal drug cases (Nebraska and Western District of Washington) and faced statutory mandatory minimums: 120 months (Nebraska) and 60 months (Washington).
The advisory Guidelines range for the combined offenses was 135–168 months; consecutive mandatory minimums produced an aggregate 180 months (above the Guideline range), while concurrent terms would yield 120 months (below the Guideline range).
At sentencing the district court imposed the mandatory minima consecutively (120 + 60 = 180 months), citing §3553(a) factors and the seriousness/recidivism concerns; this sentence was affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2015 Aguilar-Canche moved under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on retroactive Amendment 782 (reducing drug offense levels by 2 levels), which would have lowered his Guidelines range to 120–135 months.
The district court denied the §3582(c)(2) motion because the original sentence was based on statutory mandatory minima and the consecutive structure was not "based on" the subsequently-lowered Guidelines range; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §3582(c)(2) authorizes resentencing to change consecutiveness of mandatory-minimum sentences after a Guidelines amendment (Amendment 782)	Amendment 782 lowered the applicable Guidelines range and thus the court must re-evaluate other sentencing choices (including consecutive vs. concurrent) because §1B1.10 requires substituting the amended range and leaving other guideline application decisions "unaffected" only in a narrow sense	§3582(c)(2) applies only where the sentence was "based on" the now-lowered Guidelines range; here the court imposed statutory minima and chose consecutive terms under §3553(a), so the consecutive structure was not based on the Guidelines and is not adjustable under §3582(c)(2)	Affirmed. §3582(c)(2) does not permit revisiting the consecutive nature of Aguilar-Canche’s mandatory-minimum sentences because the sentence was not "based on" the amended Guidelines range.

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (statutory §3582(c)(2) relief is narrow and not a plenary resentencing)
Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (§3582(c)(2) proceedings should isolate the marginal effect of the rejected Guideline)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (Guidelines are advisory)
Edwards v. United States, 523 U.S. 511 (statutory maximum/minimum control over Guidelines)
United States v. Dunn, 631 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir.) (district court lacked authority under §3582(c)(2) to alter consecutive sentencing structure following Guidelines change)
United States v. Aguilar-Canche, [citation="362 F. App'x 618"] (9th Cir.) (direct appeal affirming substantive reasonableness of original sentence)