United States v. Reynaldo Rivera-Cruz
904 F.3d 324
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Rivera-Cruz pleaded guilty to distributing/possessing with intent to distribute cocaine; initial Guidelines calculation produced offense level 36 and range 324–405 months (Crim. Hist. VI).
- Statutory maximum for the offense was 240 months, so the PSR and district court capped the Guidelines sentence at 240 months pursuant to USSG §5G1.1.
- The Government moved under USSG §5K1.1 for a downward departure based on substantial assistance; the district court implemented a five-level departure (to offense level 31) and sentenced Rivera-Cruz to 188 months.
- Amendment 782 (2014) retroactively reduced the base offense level by 2, which would have lowered the Guidelines range absent the statutory cap; Rivera-Cruz’s capped applicable range remained 240 months.
- Rivera-Cruz moved under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) seeking a reduction to 151 months, arguing his original sentence was “based on” a Guidelines range later lowered by the Commission and that the district court’s departure used that original range as a starting point.
- The district court denied relief (finding Amendment 782 did not affect his applicable Guidelines range because of the statutory maximum); the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Rivera-Cruz's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rivera-Cruz was "sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on" a Guidelines range later lowered (so eligible under §3582(c)(2)) | The district court used his pre-cap Guidelines range as the starting point for the §5K1.1 departure; thus his sentence was "based on" a range later lowered by Amendment 782 | The statutory maximum displaced the Guidelines range; the range "dropped out of the case" and did not form the basis of the sentence | The court held Rivera-Cruz was not sentenced "based on" the lowered Guidelines range and is ineligible for §3582(c)(2) relief |
| Whether a statutory maximum displacement differs from a statutory minimum displacement for §3582(c)(2) purposes | (Implicit) The difference matters because the court relied on Guidelines calculations in departing | Statutory maximum displacements operate like statutory minimum displacements: the applicable Guidelines range is replaced and cannot form the basis for §3582(c)(2) relief | The court held the distinction is immaterial; a range displaced by a statutory maximum likewise "drops out of the case" |
| Whether the district court’s use of offense-level arithmetic to compute the departure revived the initial Guidelines range as a basis for the sentence | The district court’s five-level departure (expressed in offense levels) shows it relied on the initial Guidelines range | The departure procedure merely used the initial offense level as an arithmetic starting point; the substantive basis of the sentence was the statutory maximum and the §5K1.1 evaluation | The court held the district court’s reference to offense levels did not make the initial Guidelines range a relevant part of the sentencing framework |
| Whether Amendment 782 had the effect of lowering Rivera-Cruz’s "applicable guideline range" such that §1B1.10(a)(2)(B) would permit relief | Rivera-Cruz argued his post-departure offense level fell and produced a lower post-departure range (151–188), so Amendment 782 had that effect | The court need not decide because Rivera-Cruz fails the threshold: his sentence was not "based on" the lowered range | The court declined to resolve the effect question because Rivera-Cruz was ineligible on the "based on" ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Koons v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1783 (Sup. Ct. 2018) (holding §3582(c)(2) relief unavailable where a statutory minimum displaced the Guidelines range so the sentence was not "based on" that range)
- United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2009) ("sentencing range" refers to the end result of the guideline calculus, not interim calculations)
- United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 2011) (departure vs. variance: departures change the Guidelines range and should be expressed in offense levels)
- United States v. Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 416 (3d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for §3582(c)(2) eligibility is de novo)
- Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2011) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)