United States v. Rick Contreras, 820 F.3d 773

Rick Contreras pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute >5 kg cocaine; initial total offense level 35 (Guidelines range 168–210 months).
At sentencing, Contreras waived appeal; government requested a 1‑level downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0; court departed to offense level 34 (range 151–188) and sentenced him to 151 months.
The Sentencing Commission later lowered most drug base offense levels by two and made the amendment retroactive; 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) allows sentence modification when the guideline range is later lowered.
Contreras moved under § 3582(c)(2); the district court recalculated the amended guideline range without considering departures, set his offense level at 33 (range 135–168) and reduced his sentence to 135 months.
Contreras appealed, arguing the court should have re‑imposed the earlier § 5K2.0 downward departure, yielding offense level 32 (range 121–151) and a lower sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court may re‑impose a previously granted Guidelines departure when reducing a sentence under § 3582(c)(2)	Contreras: court should re‑apply the earlier § 5K2.0 departure after the two‑level amendment, producing offense level 32	Government: § 1B1.10 requires recalculation of the amended guideline range before any departures or variances; court cannot re‑impose departure	Court: Affirmed district court — cannot re‑impose departures when calculating the amended guideline range under § 1B1.10; reduction limited to the amended range unless the original below‑guidelines sentence was for substantial assistance
Whether the district court erred in considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when selecting the reduced sentence	Contreras: court failed to adequately consider § 3553(a) factors	Government: court considered relevant materials and imposed the lowest authorized sentence	Court: No reversible error; district court considered § 3553(a) and imposed the minimum within the authorized amended range

United States v. Moore, 733 F.3d 161 (5th Cir. 2013) (Guidelines commentary interpretation standard; commentary generally authoritative)
United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for sentencing discretion)
United States v. Hogan, 722 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2013) (holding a departure may not be re‑imposed under § 3582(c)(2) when recalculating the amended range)
United States v. Steele, 714 F.3d 751 (2d Cir. 2013) (same conclusion regarding reapplication of departures)