United States v. Tomas Rodriguez
699 F. App'x 395
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2010 Rodriguez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 19.98 kg of cocaine after officers found large quantities of marijuana and cocaine in his trailer; he was sentenced to 192 months (Guidelines range 188–235 months, statutory minimum 10 years).
- Rodriguez did not appeal his conviction or original sentence.
- In 2015 the district court, sua sponte, considered and denied a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782, citing the need to protect the community.
- In 2016 Rodriguez moved for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2)/Amendment 782, arguing he was responsible for only 5 kg of cocaine and seeking 57 months. The court treated the motion as a motion for reconsideration and denied relief.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and addressed whether § 3582(c)(2) proceedings permit relitigation of original sentencing facts and whether the district court abused its discretion by weighing Rodriguez’s criminal history and public-safety concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodriguez could obtain a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on Amendment 782 | Rodriguez claimed he was responsible for only 5 kg of cocaine and sought a lower Guidelines range | Government relied on the original guilty plea and sentencing facts and that § 3582(c)(2) does not permit relitigation of those facts | Denied: factual disputes about original drug quantity are not cognizable in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings (not a full resentencing) |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by relying on criminal history when denying reduction | Rodriguez argued the court erred in relying on his criminal history to deny a reduction | Government argued criminal history and public-safety are proper § 3553(a) considerations | Denied: court properly considered § 3553(a) factors, including criminal history and need to protect the public; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether an § 3582(c)(2) proceeding permits full resentencing or reconsideration of original facts | Rodriguez sought to challenge original sentencing facts in the § 3582(c)(2) motion | Government maintained § 3582(c)(2) is limited to applying a retroactive Guidelines amendment and discretionary resentencing under § 3553(a) factors | Held that § 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing and does not allow relitigation of original factual findings |
| Standard of review for the denial of the reduction/reconsideration | Rodriguez implicitly challenged the district court’s discretionary denial | Government invoked abuse-of-discretion standard | Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and found none |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) eligibility and two-step framework for reductions)
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (§ 3582(c)(2) does not permit relitigation of original sentencing facts)
- United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review for § 3582(c)(2) denials)
- United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2008) (procedural posture and review principles for reduction motions)
- United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 1995) (§ 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing)
- United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709 (5th Cir. 2011) (district court’s weighing of § 3553(a) factors reviewed for abuse of discretion)