United States v. Pedro Rafael Caraballo-Martinez
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14373
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1999 Pedro Caraballo-Martinez participated in a violent kidnapping and ransom scheme; a jury convicted him of hostage-taking, carjacking, conspiracy, and a § 924(c) firearm offense; he was sentenced to life on primary counts plus consecutive terms.
- The PSI applied a two-level enhancement for use of a dangerous weapon under U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(3); Caraballo did not challenge that enhancement on direct appeal.
- Sentencing Commission Amendment 599 (effective Nov. 1, 2000) clarified that § 924(c) convictions should not produce a separate Guidelines enhancement for firearm use when sentencing the underlying offense, and the amendment was made retroactive.
- Caraballo moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in 2014 seeking reduction based on Amendment 599; the district court found him eligible but denied relief after weighing § 3553(a) factors.
- Caraballo filed a counseled renewed § 3582(c)(2) motion (Oct. 2015) adding a remorse statement; the district court denied it as procedurally barred under Rule 35(a) and circuit precedent, and alternatively on the merits. Caraballo appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the district court had jurisdiction to consider the renewed motion (a denial on the merits of § 3582(c)(2) that did not alter the sentence is not a new “sentencing” triggering Rule 35), but affirmed the district court’s discretionary denial after applying Dillon’s two-step § 3582(c)(2) analysis and weighing § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court’s merits denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion constitutes a new “sentencing” that triggers Rule 35(a)’s time limit and strips jurisdiction to consider a successive motion | Caraballo: denial that leaves the original sentence intact is not a new sentencing; Rule 35 does not bar a renewed § 3582(c)(2) motion | Government: Anderson dicta says a merits denial is “in essence” a new sentence and thus Rule 35(a)’s 14-day limit applies, barring the renewed motion | The court held the merits denial did not impose a new sentence and Rule 35(a) did not bar the renewed § 3582(c)(2) motion; district court had authority to consider it |
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) statutorily bars successive motions based on the same Guidelines amendment | Caraballo: § 3582(c)(2) contains no jurisdictional bar to successive motions; subsequent motions may be considered | Government: successive motions should be limited (relied on Anderson and Rule 35) | The court held § 3582(c)(2) contains no express jurisdictional limitation on successive motions; non-jurisdictional limits were not raised here |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) after finding Amendment 599 applied | Caraballo: new remorse evidence and post-conviction conduct warranted reduction or hearing | Government: § 3553(a) factors, gravity of offense, and lack of sufficient remorse justify denying reduction | The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion: it found eligibility under Amendment 599, considered § 3553(a) factors (including post-conviction conduct), and reasonably denied relief |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required to assess sincerity of remorse in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding | Caraballo: evidentiary hearing needed to evaluate new remorse statement | Government: no hearing required; district court may decide based on filings | The court held no hearing was required; district court considered the remorse statement and other factors and acted within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) permits only limited sentence reductions, not plenary resentencing)
- United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (when a § 3582(c)(2) grant changes the term of imprisonment, that constitutes a new sentencing subject to Rule 35 time limits)
- United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 662 (11th Cir. 2014) (a procedural denial—where the amendment does not alter the Guidelines range—is not a new sentencing; law-of-the-case can bar successive motions)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (jurisdictional limits must be clearly stated by Congress)
- United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2009) (district courts must consider § 3553(a) factors in § 3582(c)(2) rulings; detailed factor-by-factor recitation not required when record shows consideration)