United States v. Zapatero, 961 F.3d 123

In 2009 Zapatero was arrested in NY, pleaded guilty and received a 51‑month sentence; he was later indicted and pled guilty in Vermont for related drug conduct.
In Vermont the court calculated an offense level (36 then varied to 34) and criminal history II, imposed a 168‑month sentence (the bottom of the advisory range) and ordered the sentence to run concurrently with the NY sentence, recommending credit from Feb 23, 2010.
The Sentencing Commission’s Amendment 782 (retroactive) lowered Zapatero’s base offense level by 2, producing an amended Guidelines range of 168–210 months (so the bottom remained 168).
Zapatero moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction below the amended range by incorporating a § 5G1.3(b) adjustment (credit for time served on a related, undischarged term).
The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion, holding § 1B1.10(b) bars reductions below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range; Zapatero appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court may reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) below the amended Guidelines minimum by accounting for a § 5G1.3(b) adjustment made at the original sentencing	Zapatero: § 5G1.3(b) is a mandatory sentence adjustment and should be applied when calculating the § 3582(c)(2) reduction, allowing a sentence below the amended range	Government: § 3582(c)(2) incorporates § 1B1.10, which forbids reducing below the amended guideline range except for substantial assistance; §5G1.3(b) is a step‑8 sentence adjustment, not part of the range	Court: Affirmed govt — § 1B1.10(b) precludes reducing below the amended Guidelines range based on a § 5G1.3(b) adjustment made at original sentencing
Whether §1B1.10(b)(1)’s instruction to “leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected” preserves prior §5G1.3(b) adjustments for §3582(c)(2) purposes	Zapatero: that language requires leaving prior §5G1.3(b) adjustments in place	Government: the phrase refers to decisions affecting the Guidelines range (steps 1–7), not step‑8 sentence adjustments	Court: Held the phrase does not permit treating a §5G1.3(b) step‑8 adjustment as part of the amended guideline range; it does not authorize reductions below the amended minimum

Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992) (plain statutory text controls interpretation)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§3582(c)(2) is a narrow exception; §1B1.10 governs reductions)
Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (Congress empowered limited corrections when Commission later changes framework)
United States v. Steele, 714 F.3d 751 (2d Cir. 2013) (departures/variances not folded into amended guideline range in §3582(c)(2) proceedings)
United States v. Erskine, 717 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) (§1B1.10 binding on district courts in §3582(c)(2) proceedings)
United States v. Brooks, 891 F.3d 432 (2d Cir. 2018) (same; §1B1.10 is the applicable policy statement)
United States v. Helm, 891 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2018) (§5G1.3(b) adjustment is a step‑8 sentence adjustment and not part of the amended guideline range)
United States v. Gonzalez‑Murillo, 852 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2017) (contrasting view: court must reapply §5G1.3(b) when reducing sentence under §3582(c)(2))