United States v. Rios
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16985
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Rios and Bautista pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine.
- Plea agreements stipulated the conspiracy involved 1.5 kilograms or more of crack; guidelines ranges were calculated accordingly, with 240 months as the capped sentence due to statutory maximum.
- PSRs erroneously stated five kilograms of crack; district court originally sentenced both to 240 months in 2001.
- 2007 amendments lowered base offense levels for crack offenses; Bautista moved for resentencing; district court denied due to no lower applicable range.
- 2011 amendments further revised crack guidelines; Bautista and Rios filed second motions; district court denied based on amended ranges and caps.
- Appeals followed; district court's quantity findings and reliance on evidentiary hearing are challenged; the court ultimately affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to hold evidentiary hearing | Rios/Bautista argue §3582(c)(2) hearing cannot resolve quantity. | Rios/Bautista contend plea/PSR bind quantity; no new findings allowed. | District court did not err; hearing permissible to determine quantity under amended guidelines. |
| Drug quantity findings vs original sentencing | Record did not establish quantity beyond plea stipulation; findings contradictory. | Court may make new findings if consistent with original record and amended guidelines. | District court's quantity findings not clearly erroneous; consistent with record and amendments. |
| Bautista's eligibility for a reduced sentence | Even with five kilograms, statutory cap may preclude reduction; guidelines minimums apply. | §3582(c)(2) allows reduction if amended range is lower, regardless of cap. | Bautista ineligible for reduction; cap and lack of substantial-assistance downward departure prevent relief. |
| Due process and notice in Bautista’s hearing | Using Rios hearing evidence without Bautista present violates due process. | Disposition independent of Rios hearing; Bautista had notice through decisions and counsel agreement. | No due process violation; decision grounded in independent reasoning and agreed calculations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 F.3d 817 (2010) (requires substitution of amendments in §1B1.10(b)(1) analyses for resentencing)
- United States v. Woods, 581 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2009) (district court may hold evidentiary hearings in §3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- United States v. Davis, 682 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2012) (new findings may be necessary under retroactive amendments if consistent with prior findings)
- United States v. Thorn, 317 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2003) (preponderance standard for sentencing facts)
- United States v. Guang, 511 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2007) (clearly erroneous standard for drug quantity findings on appeal)