United States v. Romero
19-2069
| 10th Cir. | Oct 25, 2019Background
- Abel Romero pleaded guilty under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) to multiple drug and firearms offenses with a stipulated total sentence of 131 months.
- The presentence report grouped counts; the highest-applicable count was felon-in-possession (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)), so the Guidelines offense level was set under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 (base level 26; total offense level 31; CHC VI).
- The advisory Guidelines range (based on grouping) was substantially higher, but the district court imposed the agreed 131-month term.
- Romero later moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), citing Guidelines Amendment 782 (which lowered drug-quantity offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1).
- The district court denied relief because Amendment 782 did not alter Romero’s Guidelines calculation (his offense level derived from § 2K2.1, not § 2D1.1); Romero’s alternative request under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) was rejected as inapplicable in criminal proceedings.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on Amendment 782 | Romero: Amendment 782 lowered drug Guidelines, so he should be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction; Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea does not bar relief (citing Hughes) | Gov/District Court: Romero’s sentence was based on §2K2.1 (firearm), not §2D1.1 (drug quantity); Amendment 782 did not change his Guidelines calculation, so § 3582(c)(2) inapplicable | Denied — Romero is ineligible because the retroactive amendment did not lower the Guidelines range used at sentencing; Hughes does not help when calculations are unaffected (affirmed) |
| Availability of Rule 60(b) relief to challenge § 3582(c) denial | Romero: alternatively requested relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) | Gov/District Court: Civil Rule 60(b) does not apply in criminal cases and cannot be used to attack a § 3582(c) denial | Denied — Rule 60(b) is not available to challenge a § 3582(c) ruling in a criminal case (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018) (Rule 11(c)(1)(C) defendants can sometimes be eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- United States v. Hodge, 721 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2013) (defendant ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) if retroactive amendment did not affect sentencing calculation)
- United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for § 3582(c) denial: abuse of discretion)
- United States v. McCalister, 601 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 2010) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) unavailable to challenge criminal § 3582(c) rulings)