United States v. Roberto Ortiz, Jr., 663 F. App'x 903

Ortiz was convicted in absentia (2007) of conspiracy to manufacture 100–999 marijuana plants; a PSR under the 2006 Guidelines produced an offense level 28 and a 78–97 month range; he was sentenced to 97 months.
He fled during trial, was later captured (in Canada), pled guilty to failure to appear, and received a consecutive 12-month sentence.
Amendment 782 (2014) retroactively reduced most drug offense base levels by two; Ortiz’s amended guideline range would be 63–78 months.
Ortiz moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction to 63 months; the government opposed on the ground that reducing his sentence would reward absconding and create disparities.
The district court, citing the reward-for-absconding concern, denied discretionary relief; Ortiz appealed.

Issue	Ortiz’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether Ortiz is eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief after Amendment 782	Amendment 782 lowers his guideline range to 63–78 months, so he is eligible	Eligibility conceded but relief should be denied	Eligible, but eligibility alone does not entitle relief
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a reduction	He argued § 3553(a) factors, post‑sentence conduct, and double punishment concerns support reduction	Denial justified because reduction would effectively reward absconding and create unwarranted disparities	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Whether the court needed a particular comparator to show disparity	Not necessary; Ortiz emphasized fairness and reintegration	Court argued showing similar defendants would not have benefited absent absconding; no specific comparator required	Comparator not required; disparity argument unnecessary here
Whether the sentencing court failed to consider § 3553(a) factors	Asked court to weigh offense, history, deterrence, and rehabilitation in favor of reduction	Government stressed offender’s role and absconding outweigh mitigating factors	Court considered § 3553(a) factors and reasonably found government’s arguments dispositive

United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) discretionary reductions)
United States v. Jules, 595 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion framework)
United States v. Drury, 396 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir.) (district court must avoid clear errors of judgment)
United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir.) (discussion of comparator use in sentencing disparity claims)
United States v. Smith, 568 F.3d 923 (11th Cir.) (district court not required to address every § 3553(a) factor explicitly)