United States v. Rodolfo Trujillo
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7561
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Trujillo was convicted in 1993 of conspiracy to possess and possessing with intent to distribute 2,915 kg of cocaine, sentenced to 360 months.
- The Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines to lower the offense level and added an upward-departure note for large drug quantities; amendments 505 and 536 were retroactive.
- Trujillo moved once under §3582(c)(2); the district court declined to reduce, relying on an upward departure under the amended guideline note.
- Thirteen years later, Trujillo filed a second §3582(c)(2) motion arguing §3553(a) factors and other considerations; the district court entertained it and denied relief.
- The district court did not discuss the §3553(a) factors in its ruling, focusing on drug quantity and role in the offense to justify the upward departure.
- The panel vacated and remanded for an explanation of the §3553(a) factors and to address the second motion consistent with §3582(c)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a second §3582(c)(2) motion is within district court jurisdiction | Govt argued second motion lacks jurisdiction | Trujillo contends §3582(c)(2) has no jurisdictional bar for a second motion | §3582(c)(2) has no jurisdictional bar to a second motion |
| Whether the district court adequately explained the §3553(a) factors | Trujillo argued the court relied on factors and discussed nonfrivolous arguments | District court did not address §3553(a) factors in detail | District court failed to explain why it rejected §3553(a) arguments; vacate and remand |
| Whether upward departure under Application Note 17 violates Ex Post Facto | Note 17 used to depart upward; argues retroactive amendment disadvantaged him | Note 17 does not disadvantage because sentence remains within original range | No Ex Post Facto violation; current rule did not render original sentence erroneous |
| Whether §3582(c)(2) denial exceeded proper scope after retroactive amendments | Argues for reconsideration under retroactive amendments | Contends the district court must apply Note 17 and Amendment 505/536 | Court properly treated the motion under applicable retroactive amendments; remand on §3553(a) considerations |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 536 U.S. 500 (2006) (jurisdictional labels reserved for subject-matter reach; many limits are non-jurisdictional)
- Dillon v. United States, 570 U.S. 2683 (2010) (§3582(c)(2) proceedings; not a new sentence in the ordinary sense)
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011) (post-sentencing factors; judge should explain when nonfrivolous arguments are raised)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (consider all §3553(a) factors; avoid unwarranted disparities)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (explanation required when nonfrivolous §3553(a) arguments presented)
- Carty v. United States, 520 F.3d 984 (2008) (en banc; requires explanation when nonfrivolous arguments are raised)
- Stoterau v. United States, 524 F.3d 988 (2008) (explains need for explanation of §3553(a) factors)
- Chaney v. United States, 581 F.3d 1123 (2009) (standard of review for §3553(a) considerations)
- Colson v. United States, 573 F.3d 915 (2009) (reviewing §3582(c)(2) decisions)
- Weatherspoon v. United States, 696 F.3d 416 (2012) ( Third Circuit on second §3582(c)(2) motion)
- Hamilton v. United States, 67 F.3d 761 (1995) (Ex Post Facto analysis for retroactive amendments)
- Zakharov v. United States, 468 F.3d 1171 (2006) (post-sentencing considerations under §3553(a))
- Perlaza v. United States, 439 F.3d 1149 (2006) (comparison cases in §3553(a) context)