United States v. Martinez-Martinez (Frias) ( 2018 )

17-3923
United States v. Martinez-Martinez (Frias)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed
on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a
document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic
database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve
a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
26th day of September, two thousand eighteen.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Chief Judge,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judge,
TIMOTHY C. STANCEU,*
Judge.
____________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v. No. 17-3923
ROBERTO MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, AKA
Papito, AKA Roberto Martinez, MIGUEL ANGEL
MARTINEZ-SANDOVAL, AKA Movie,
Defendants,
OCTAVIO FRIAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________________
For Defendant-Appellant: OCTAVIO FRIAS, pro se, White Deer, PA.
* Judge Timothy C. Stanceu, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
For Appellee: ADAM HOBSON, Hagan Scotten, Assistant United States
Attorneys, for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney
for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Keenan, J.).
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
and DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Octavio Frias moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in his
sentence for conspiracy to commit murder based on Amendment 782 to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion. We assume the parties’ familiarity
with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
Section 3582(c)(2) provides that a sentencing court may reduce a defendant’s term of
imprisonment if he is eligible for a reduction because he was sentenced based on a Guidelines
range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). We review de novo a district court’s determination as to whether a defendant is
eligible for a sentence reduction under this section. United States v. Christie, 736 F.3d 191, 195
(2d Cir. 2013).
The district court correctly determined that Frias was not eligible for a sentence
reduction. “Amendment 782 . . . amended the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to
reduce the offense levels associated with certain controlled substances crimes by two levels.”
United States v. Leonard, 844 F.3d 102, 106 (2d Cir. 2016); see also U.S.S.G., Supp. to App. C,
am. 782. But Frias’s guidelines range was unaffected by the amendment. His total offense level
(43) was calculated based on U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1, which was not affected by Amendment 782.
2
U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1. Because Frias’s offense level remained unchanged from his original
sentencing, he is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Mock, 612 F.3d 133,
137–38 (2d Cir. 2010) (determining that defendant was ineligible for sentence reduction where
he was sentenced under a guidelines section that was unaffected by a guidelines amendment).
And because Frias is not eligible for a sentence reduction, the district court did not err by failing
to apply the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Christie, 736 F.3d at 194 (“If, and only if, a
defendant is eligible for a reduction in sentence . . . then . . . the district court [must] consider any
applicable § 3553(a) factors.” (citation omitted)).
Frias argues that the district court erred by applying § 2A1.1 and should have calculated
his guidelines range based on the drug offense guidelines. In addition, he challenges the
substantive reasonableness of his sentence. These arguments are barred by the law of the case
doctrine because we previously affirmed Frias’s conviction and sentence. See United States v.
Frias, No. 04-4106-cr, slip op. at 3 (2d Cir. Sept. 28, 2005) (affirming conviction); United States
v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229, 234, 236 (2d Cir. 2008) (affirming sentence); see also United States v.
Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 476 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[T]he law of the case doctrine ordinarily will bar a
defendant from renewing challenges to rulings made by the sentencing court that were
adjudicated by this Court—or that could have been adjudicated by us had the defendant made
them—during the initial appeal[.]”).
We have considered all of Frias’s remaining arguments and find them to be without
merit. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
3