United States v. Raul Mercado-Moreno
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16402
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Raul Mercado-Moreno led a large methamphetamine manufacturing/distribution conspiracy in Eastern California (2000–2004); pleaded guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to manufacture/distribute ≥50 grams of meth.
- In his plea agreement and under oath he admitted distributing more than 4,376.1 grams (≈4.3 kg) and managing others who manufactured at a Turlock lab where law enforcement seized ~40 pounds of meth solution.
- At 2007 sentencing the court (relying on the PSR) adopted a finding of ~4.2 kg distributed, applied the then-maximum base offense level (38) tied to ≥1.5 kg, and imposed 210 months’ imprisonment per the plea agreement.
- Amendment 782 (2014) raised the threshold for the maximum base offense level from 1.5 kg to 4.5 kg; Amendment 788 made Amendment 782 retroactive, enabling § 3582(c)(2) motions.
- Mercado moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction, arguing his attributable quantity was 4.2 kg so Amendment 782 lowered his guideline range; the district court (new judge) found he was responsible for ≥4.5 kg (relying on the seized 40 lb solution and a chemical report) and denied relief.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit considered whether a district court may make supplemental drug-quantity findings in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings and whether a hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of factfinding in § 3582(c)(2) | Gov: court may determine quantity necessary to decide eligibility | Mercado: district court may not re-determine original quantity finding | District courts may make supplemental quantity findings when necessary to decide eligibility, but cannot contradict original sentencing findings |
| Reliance on record beyond original sentencing | Gov: may consider record evidence and PSR; use preponderance standard | Mercado: court improperly relied on evidence not before original sentencing | Court may consider additional record evidence; error in using extra materials would be harmless here because PSR and seized solution suffice |
| Burden / standard of proof for supplemental findings | Gov: preponderance of the evidence | Mercado: (implicit) higher protection required | Preponderance of the evidence governs quantity findings in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings |
| Need for an evidentiary hearing | Gov: court has discretion; not always required | Mercado: district court erred by not holding a hearing | District courts have broad discretion whether to hold a hearing; no hearing was required here |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) permits only limited adjustments to final sentences, not plenary resentencing)
- United States v. Chaney, 581 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2009) (review standard for denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (acceptance of plea tied to Guidelines can make defendant eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court may supplement quantity findings in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- United States v. Hall, 600 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2010) (courts may make new findings supported by the record so long as not inconsistent with original findings)
- United States v. Rios, 765 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2014) (district courts may make new findings on drug quantity in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (clear-error standard for reviewing factual findings)