United States v. Peguero-Franco (Tolentino)
706 F. App'x 18
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Juan Tolentino (pro se) sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782, which lowered base offense levels for most drug offenses.
- The District Court found Tolentino eligible for a reduction but denied relief in its discretion.
- At original sentencing, the court weighed offense seriousness, sophistication, drug quantities, and community harm.
- Tolentino appealed the denial of the § 3582(c)(2) motion to the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a discretionary sentence reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tolentino was eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Amendment 782 renders Tolentino eligible for a reduced sentence | District court conceded eligibility but retained discretion to deny relief | Court affirmed that Tolentino was eligible but eligibility alone does not require a reduction |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the reduction | Tolentino argued the reduction should be granted (presumably based on amendment) | District court relied on original § 3553(a) factors and declined to reduce sentence | No abuse of discretion; denial was within permissible range |
| Whether the district court had to consider post-sentencing conduct | Tolentino argued (implicitly) that post-sentencing conduct warranted reduction | District court was not required to consider post-sentencing conduct and did not err by focusing on earlier sentencing factors | Court noted that post-sentencing conduct may be considered but is not required |
| Appropriate standard of review for denial of § 3582(c)(2) motion | Tolentino sought de novo review (implicit) | Government urged abuse-of-discretion review | Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard and found no abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2009) (district court has discretion to deny § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (procedural framework for § 3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Christie, 736 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2013) (district court must consider § 3553(a) factors when deciding § 3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Rios, 765 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion review for § 3582(c)(2) denials)