United States v. Miguel Quintero
689 F. App'x 307
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Miguel Quintero, a federal prisoner, moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a discretionary sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
- The district court denied Quintero’s § 3582(c)(2) motion; Quintero appealed the denial.
- A probation officer prepared an addendum to the presentence report addressing Quintero’s post‑sentencing prison disciplinary infractions (including assault convictions).
- Quintero contends he was not given a copy of that addendum or an opportunity to rebut its contents before the district court ruled.
- Quintero argues the disciplinary incidents were not serious and one resulted in suspended discipline; he says this would have affected the court’s discretionary decision.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether failure to provide notice and a chance to respond was harmful error in the § 3582(c)(2) context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Quintero was entitled to receive and respond to the probation addendum before denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion | Quintero: He was not provided the addendum or an opportunity to rebut it and would have explained the infractions were not serious / included suspended discipline | Government: § 3582(c)(2) proceedings are limited; the court may consider post‑sentencing disciplinary history and no reversible error shown | Court: Even if Quintero lacked prior access, any error was not harmful because he could not show the addendum contained reversible error or that proper weighing of conduct was prevented |
| Whether reliance on the addendum without notice requires vacatur | Quintero: Lack of notice deprived him of meaningful opportunity to contest material relied on by the court | Government: District court may consider disciplinary history and exercise discretion; no disputed facts that would change outcome | Court: Vacatur is required only when the denial of notice was harmful; here it was not, so affirmance is appropriate |
| Standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) reductions | Quintero: (implicit) Court should review for correct procedure and consideration of § 3553(a) factors | Government: Decision is discretionary and reviewed for abuse of discretion | Court: Review is abuse of discretion; absent record showing failure to consider the motion as a whole, no abuse found |
| Applicability of full resentencing protections in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings | Quintero: (implicit) protections should apply when new evidence or disputed facts are introduced | Government: § 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing; defendant need not be present unless new disputed facts or evidence arise | Court: Agrees § 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing and notice/opportunity to be heard is required only when facts are disputed or new evidence is relied upon |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir.) (discretionary § 3582(c)(2) reduction framework)
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir.) (district court need not reduce sentence; review is for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir.) (implicit consideration of § 3553(a) factors suffices)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S.) (§ 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing)
- United States v. Mueller, 168 F.3d 186 (5th Cir.) (vacatur where reliance on addendum without notice was harmful)
- United States v. Townsend, 55 F.3d 168 (5th Cir.) (notice and opportunity required if court intends to base decision on evidence not presented at original sentencing)
- United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322 (5th Cir.) (district court may consider post‑sentencing disciplinary history when deciding § 3582(c)(2) motions)