United States v. Torres-Rivera
874 F.3d 40
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Torres pled guilty (Oct 3, 2012) to one count of a six-count indictment for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine; plea stipulated to 3.5–5 kg and calculated a base offense level of 30 and a Guidelines range of 97–121 months; court sentenced him to 102 months.
- Sentencing enhancements included distribution in a protected location, firearm possession (+2), and a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
- The Sentencing Commission reduced most drug base offense levels by 2 (Amendment 782) and made that change retroactive (Amendment 788); § 3582(c)(2) permits sentencing reduction consistent with § 1B1.10 and after considering § 3553(a).
- Torres moved under § 3582(c)(2) to apply Amendment 782, which would lower his range to 78–97 months; the Probation Office recommended a 20‑month reduction.
- The government opposed, asserting Torres had prison disciplinary sanctions (phrased in a way that suggested multiple, post‑sentencing sanctions), and the district court denied the motion, citing Torres’s role, firearm possession, and his conduct in BOP.
- The First Circuit found the government’s description misleading (there was one pre‑sentencing sanction) and vacated and remanded because the district court may have relied on a materially erroneous understanding of Torres’s prison conduct when considering § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) reduction was authorized and properly denied | Torres: Amendment 782 should apply and sentence should be reduced to new Guidelines range | Government: Reduction unwarranted given Torres’s disciplinary history and seriousness of offense | Vacated and remanded for reconsideration because district court may have relied on a misleading record about prison conduct |
| Whether district court relied on clearly erroneous facts about prison conduct | Torres: Court relied on an inaccurate view (multiple/post‑sentencing sanctions) | Government: Characterized conduct to justify denial; court may consider post‑sentencing conduct | Court concluded government’s filing plausibly misled the district court; record shows one pre‑sentencing sanction, so remand required to clarify facts |
| Whether reliance on firearm possession was improper double‑counting | Torres: Firearm already factored into Guidelines; using it again is impermissible | Government/District: Firearm is a valid § 3553(a) consideration in exercising discretion | Rejected double‑counting challenge; court may consider overlapping factors when deciding § 3582(c)(2) reductions |
| Whether Torres suffered unwarranted disparity or was entitled to a hearing | Torres: Others with infractions got reductions; court should hold hearing | Government: Disparities not apples‑to‑apples; hearing not required | Court rejected disparity and hearing claims; remand limited to clarifying factual record about prison conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vaughn, 806 F.3d 640 (1st Cir.) (discussing § 3582(c)(2) reduction procedure)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (two‑step framework for § 3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Zayas‑Ortiz, 808 F.3d 520 (1st Cir. 2015) (weight given to district court’s statement that it considered § 3553(a))
- United States v. Rivero‑Moreno, 613 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (district court abuses discretion if it relies on clearly erroneous facts)
- United States v. Aponte‑Guzmán, 696 F.3d 157 (1st Cir. 2012) (district court may consider firearm involvement when denying § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- United States v. Maisonet‑González, 785 F.3d 757 (1st Cir. 2015) (overlap between Guidelines factors and § 3553(a) is not necessarily impermissible double‑counting)
- United States v. Reyes‑Rivera, 812 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2016) (permitting multiple enhancements that derive from common operative facts)