5 F.4th 195
2d Cir.2021Background
- In 1996 Moyhernandez sold about 90 grams of crack cocaine and a gun; in 2000 he was convicted of conspiracy to distribute >50 g crack and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Because he was a career offender, his mandatory Guidelines range was 360 months to life; Judge Mukasey sentenced him to 360 months (the Guidelines bottom) and 10 years supervised release.
- The 2010 Fair Sentencing Act raised the crack threshold triggering a 20-year mandatory minimum from 50 g to 280 g; Moyhernandez’s offense (90 g) falls below the new threshold.
- The First Step Act §404 (2018) permits courts to reduce sentences retroactively as if the Fair Sentencing Act had been in effect and authorizes defendants to move for reductions.
- In 2019 Moyhernandez moved under §404; the district court (Preska) found him eligible but denied relief, citing his career-offender status, lengthy criminal history, and impending deportation (which influenced supervised-release decision), and stated courts are not required to consider the §3553(a) factors.
- On appeal the Second Circuit affirmed: consideration of §3553(a) is permissive (not mandatory) in §404 proceedings, the district court did not abuse its discretion, and it correctly analyzed eligibility and authority; Judge Pooler dissented, arguing §3553(a) is required and remand was needed.
Issues
| Issue | Moyhernandez's Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district courts are required to consider 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors when ruling on a First Step Act §404 motion | §3553(a) must be applied and was omitted here; that omission requires remand | §3553(a) need not be mandatory; district courts retain discretion to decide relevant factors | The Second Circuit: §3553(a) is not mandatory on §404 review but may be considered; affirmed (majority) |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying reduction of the 360-month sentence | The court should reduce to time served (Judge Mukasey said he would have imposed less absent mandatory Guidelines) | The court permissibly denied reduction based on career-offender status and lengthy criminal record | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying reduction of the 10-year supervised-release term | Supervised-release should be reduced along with imprisonment | Deportation renders supervised-release reduction unnecessary; court’s discretion | No abuse of discretion; denial of reduction of supervised release affirmed |
| Whether the district court misapplied eligibility/authority (career-offender analysis and use of Form AO‑247) | Court misread law on career-offender relevance and Form AO‑247 indicates confusion about authority under the First Step Act | Court correctly determined eligibility (covered offense) and used the form without misunderstanding its authority | Court properly understood eligibility and authority; use of form did not show reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moore, 975 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2020) (explaining §404(b) authorizes determining the impact of Fair Sentencing Act, not plenary resentencing)
- United States v. Holloway, 956 F.3d 660 (2d Cir. 2020) (First Step Act §404 eligibility analysis and scope)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (holding Guidelines advisory, not mandatory)
- United States v. Easter, 975 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding §3553(a) must be considered on §404 review)
- United States v. White, 984 F.3d 76 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (requiring thorough §3553(a) consideration in complex §404 proceedings)
- United States v. Boulding, 960 F.3d 774 (6th Cir. 2020) (stating review must include recalculation of amended Guidelines and renewed §3553(a) consideration)