United States of America v. Jorge Beltran-Estrada
No. 19-3773
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
March 12, 2021
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City. Submitted: November 16, 2020. [Published]
Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
In 2013, after pleading guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine,
The district court2 granted Beltran-Estrada‘s motion and reduced his term of imprisonment from 235 months to 199 months. Beltran-Estrada filed a motion for reconsideration, requesting a further reduction to 188 months and an evidentiary hearing to address the alleged conduct violations. The court denied his motion for reconsideration, and this appeal followed.
Beltran-Estrada contends that the district court denied him the opportunity to be heard during resentencing, violating his right to procedural due process. Though we generally review a district court‘s decision to modify a sentence under
“There is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in a discretionary sentence reduction, so the Due Process Clause does not afford procedural protections to those who seek one.” United States v. Alaniz, 961 F.3d 998, 999 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (cleaned up). Even so, a defendant requesting a reduction does have “the basic right to be apprised of information on which the court will rest its decision.” United States v. Foster, 575 F.3d 861, 863 (8th Cir. 2009). In this case, Beltran-Estrada was apprised of the information on which the district court rested its decision. He does not dispute that he was informed of and had access to the Probation Office‘s memorandum, which formed a primary basis for the court‘s sentence. He also had the opportunity to provide mitigating evidence and to rebut the allegations prior to the court‘s order reducing his sentence. The district court did not violate Beltran-Estrada‘s rights as recognized in United States v. Foster.
Beltran-Estrada also argues that § 6A1.3 of the Guidelines required the district court to provide him with “an adequate opportunity to present information to the court regarding” “any factor important to the sentencing determination [that] is reasonably in dispute.” USSG § 6A1.3(a). Even if we assume that § 6A1.3 applies to
Beltran-Estrada further argues that the district court provided an inadequate explanation for its reduced sentence, rendering that sentence procedurally unreasonable. See United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 964 (2010) (reviewing a sentence reduction for abuse of discretion). In granting a motion for sentence reduction, a district court must offer “some explanation in the record of [its] reasoning.” Id. at 964-65. But assuming the court provides this explanation, it “need not give lengthy explanations of the § 3553(a) factors or categorically rehearse the relevant factors in a § 3582 proceeding.” Id. at 964 (cleaned up).
In selecting its sentence, the district court here specifically referenced Beltran-Estrada‘s alleged conduct violations while in custody, and in denying the motion to reconsider, it adopted the government‘s reasons why a 199-month sentence was warranted. Cf. id. (suggesting that a district court‘s statement that it was adopting one of the party‘s arguments would suffice as an explanation). The court‘s explanation of its reasoning was brief, but it provided enough information to “allow us to discern how [it] exercised its discretion.” Burrell, 622 F.3d at 964; see also Alaniz, 961 F.3d at 1000 (“What matters for us is having enough information for meaningful appellate review.“). While the district court “could have said more,” Alaniz, 961 F.3d at 1000, we discern no abuse of discretion.
We affirm.