United States v. Richard Garcia
704 F. App'x 356
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Garcia pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver >5 kg cocaine; initial advisory Guidelines range 151–188 months; received a downward departure to 130 months and did not appeal.
- Amendment 782 lowered his base offense level; Garcia moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking reduction to the statutory minimum (120 months).
- Probation addendum indicated eligibility for a reduced range and noted the court should consider danger to the community; a sealed addendum summarized post‑sentencing conduct (disciplinary infractions, program participation, high security risk).
- District court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion citing “the further need to protect the community.” Garcia sought clarification and appealed; there were mailing/notice issues and a late notice of appeal issue.
- This court accepted the Government’s waiver of Rule 4(b) timeliness defenses, reviewed the § 3582(c)(2) denial for abuse of discretion, and remanded because the district court may have relied on a sealed PSR addendum without giving Garcia notice or opportunity to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal under Rule 4(b) | Garcia: his notice was timely because he mailed it within 14 days after receiving notice on June 1 | Gov't: Rule 4(b) deadlines expired; district court correctly denied extension | Court: Government waived timeliness defense; appellate review proceeds (equitable relief not decided) |
| Denial of § 3582(c)(2) reduction (scope of factors and evidence) | Garcia: district court relied on an improper ground (“further need to protect the community”) and clearly erred in assessing evidence; he is no greater a risk now | Gov't: court may consider § 3553(a) factors including public protection and the PSR/addendum showing serious offense, criminal history, infractions, and security risk | Court: No abuse in citing public protection (district court need not recite §3553(a) verbatim), but remand required because district court may have considered a sealed addendum without giving Garcia notice and chance to respond; court must either state the addendum was not relied on or allow Garcia to view/respond and then reconsider |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2007) (Rule 4(b) deadlines are mandatory but nonjurisdictional and may be waived)
- United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for § 3582(c)(2) decisions; factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709 (5th Cir. 2011) (district court has discretion whether to modify sentence under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2013) (district court need not recite § 3553(a) factors verbatim)
- United States v. Mueller, 168 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 1999) (court may consider PSR addendum in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings only if defendant is given notice and opportunity to respond)