United States v. TAPIA
2:12-cr-00261
E.D. Pa.Jun 5, 2025Background
- Randy Tapia pleaded guilty in 2013 to conspiracy to distribute large amounts of methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana—some offenses occurring within 1,000 feet of a school.
- At sentencing, his guideline range was 360 months to life due to a high offense level and criminal history, but he received a 240-month mandatory minimum sentence.
- Tapia filed motions for sentence reduction based on Amendment 821 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing for relief based on changes to the guidelines and the length of his sentence.
- Amendment 821 made changes to criminal history "status points," but these did not lower Tapia's guideline range or affect his criminal history category.
- Tapia also argued for a reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the First Step Act and asserting his sentence was "unusually long," but the relevant changes to mandatory minimums were explicitly nonretroactive by Congress.
- The court previously denied Tapia’s similar motions and reaffirmed that no guideline or legal change presented grounds for relief in this instance.
Issues
| Issue | Tapia's Argument | Gov't Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Amendment 821 | Amendment 821 reduces status points, potentially lowering guideline range | The amendment does not reduce Tapia's range or change his criminal history category | Denied; no change to guideline range |
| Eligibility under § 3582(c)(1)(A) | Sentence's length and nonretroactive law change are “extraordinary and compelling” | Recent legal changes do not qualify as compelling reasons when made expressly nonretroactive | Denied; change is not cognizable under circuit precedent |
| Retroactivity of First Step Act | Tapia’s sentence would have been lower if sentenced after the Act | The First Step Act’s relevant changes are not retroactive | Denied; changes explicitly nonretroactive |
| Application of New Policy Statement on Long Sentences | New USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6) allows relief for unusually long sentences after 10 years served | Policy statement cannot override Congressional intent of nonretroactivity | Denied; policy change cannot be used in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (Process for § 3582 sentence reductions must follow guidelines and statutory constraints)
- United States v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255 (Length of lawfully imposed sentence and nonretroactive law changes are not compelling reasons for reduction)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 855 F.3d 526 (Sentence reductions require an actual lowering of the guideline range by a retroactive amendment)
- United States v. Rutherford, 120 F.4th 360 (Policy statement on unusually long sentences cannot override explicit congressional bar on retroactivity)