United States v. Maldonado-Rios
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10064
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Maldonado pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute >5 kg cocaine and was sentenced to 135 months (above the 120‑month statutory minimum). He appealed, arguing inadequate sentencing explanation.
- While the appeal was pending, the Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 782 (retroactive), lowering base offense levels and likely reducing Maldonado’s guideline range.
- Maldonado moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction; the government agreed a 120‑month sentence was appropriate.
- The district court issued an order on March 31, 2015 purporting to reduce the sentence to 120 months while the appeal remained pending; neither party notified this Court.
- The First Circuit concluded the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the modification while the appeal was docketed, and invoked Fed. R. App. P. 12.1 procedures instead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may enter a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction while an appeal of the original sentence is pending | United States agreed reduction to 120 months was proper and treated district court order as valid relief | Maldonado sought the reduction and relied on Amendment 782 to lower guideline range | District court lacks jurisdiction to enter a substantive § 3582(c)(2) reduction while the sentence appeal is pending; Rule 12.1 indicative‑ruling procedure applies |
| Appropriate procedure when movant files § 3582(c)(2) motion during pendency of appeal | N/A (government and Maldonado both supported reduction) | N/A | Fed. R. App. P. 12.1 requires the district court to state whether it would grant the motion (an indicative ruling); the court and parties must notify the appellate clerk, and the court of appeals may then remand while retaining jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Torres-Oliveras, 583 F.3d 37 (1st Cir.) (general rule that a docketed appeal divests the district court of control over aspects involved in the appeal)
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (Sup. Ct.) (notice of appeal divests district court of jurisdiction)
- United States v. Distasio, 820 F.2d 20 (1st Cir.) (docketed notice of appeal suspends sentencing court's power to modify sentence under Rule 35(b))
- United States v. Ortega, 859 F.2d 327 (5th Cir.) (discussing exceptions where district court actions unrelated to appeal’s substance may proceed)