United States v. Roberto Torres, 856 F.3d 1095

Background

Roberto Torres was convicted (2007) of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, to import marijuana (collectively "drug-trafficking offenses"), and money-laundering; the PSR grouped the counts and tied the money-laundering base offense level to the drug offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(a)(1).
Under the 2007 Guidelines Torres’s drug total offense level was 39 (guideline range 262–327 months); the money-laundering sentence was constrained by a 240-month statutory maximum, so the court imposed 262 months on drug counts and 240 months on the laundering count, to run concurrently.
Amendment 782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014) lowered drug quantity offense levels by two, reducing Torres’s drug offense level from 39 to 37 and yielding an amended advisory range of 210–262 months.
Torres and the government jointly moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction to 210 months; at the hearing the district court agreed it could reduce drug sentences but believed it could not reduce the money-laundering sentence and denied the motion entirely; Torres’s counsel concurred with that view.
On appeal Torres argued the money-laundering base offense level should fall with the drug level because § 2S1.1(a)(1) ties laundering offense level to the underlying offense; the government had joined the motion below but now argued affirmance.
The Fifth Circuit found the district court erred in concluding it could not reduce the laundering guideline (plain error), that the error affected Torres’s substantial rights, and that discretion should be exercised to correct the error; the denial was reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amendment 782’s reduction to drug offense levels also reduces the money-laundering guideline base level when § 2S1.1 ties laundering to the underlying offense	Torres: Amendment 782 reduced the drug offense level and thus, under § 2S1.1(a)(1), also reduces the laundering base level and sentencing range	Government/district court: Money-laundering sentence was not "up for consideration" and could not be reduced below the statutory maximum or as affected by Amendment 782	The court held the district court erred: a reduction to the drug offense level triggers the corresponding change to the laundering offense level; the district court’s refusal was plain error
Standard of review for issues not raised below	Torres sought to raise the guideline-application argument on appeal	Government pointed to deference/abuse-of-discretion review because parties previously moved jointly	The court applied plain-error review for arguments raised first on appeal and found the guideline error was clear and affected substantial rights
Whether the district court relied on § 3553(a) to deny reduction	Government: the denial was discretionary under Dillon step two (§ 3553(a))	Torres: the record shows the court made a legal error on eligibility, not a § 3553(a) merits denial	Held: record does not support a § 3553(a) denial; the court erred at step one (eligibility)
Whether the appellate court should correct the plain error despite discretion	Torres: correction warranted because error affected sentencing range materially and government joined the reduction motion below	Government: asks affirmance	Held: Fifth Circuit exercised discretion to correct the error — reversal and remand — because the disparity in potential months, lack of § 3553(a) reasons, and government’s prior support counseled correction

Key Cases Cited

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error standard and fourth-prong test for correcting plain error)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (two-step framework under § 3582(c)(2))
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (reliance on an incorrect Guidelines range ordinarily affects substantial rights)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain-error framework)
United States v. Rosales-Mireles, 850 F.3d 246 (plain-error identification via straightforward application of the Guidelines)
United States v. Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327 (declining to correct large-range error where district court explained above-guidelines reasons)
United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (en banc discussion of plain error in sentencing context)
United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281 (correcting sentencing error where sentence was outside proper range)
United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (exercising discretion to correct erroneous guideline calculation)