United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 23, 2016
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 16-2003
(D.C. No. 2:92-CR-00486-KG-1)
GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ-AGUIRRE, (D.N.M.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Gabriel Rodriguez-Aguirre appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for
a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on a subsequent amendment
to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we vacate the district court’s order and remand with instructions to dismiss
the motion.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
I
In 1994, a jury convicted Rodriguez-Aguirre on multiple counts of drug
trafficking and money laundering. His presentence report (“PSR”) recommended a
base offense level of 38 because the quantity of marijuana-equivalent attributable to
Rodriguez-Aguirre was approximately 2.2 million kilograms—far greater than the
30,000 kilogram threshold for that base offense level. Based in part on his offense
level, the PSR recommended a Guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment.
The district court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment.
In 2014, Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered certain offense levels
under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). U.S.S.G. Manual, Supp. to App. C, amend. 782.
However, the Amendment retained an offense level of 38 for offenses involving more
than 90,000 kilograms of marijuana. § 2D1.1(c) (2015). In October 2015,
Rodriguez-Aguirre sent a letter to the clerk in the District of New Mexico asking the
court to appoint counsel to file a motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2)
in light of Amendment 782. The letter appeared in the district court’s docket as a
motion for a sentence reduction. In response, the district court appointed counsel,
but before counsel appeared or filed anything on Rodriguez-Aguirre’s behalf, the
court sua sponte entered an order denying a sentence reduction. Rodriguez-Aguirre
appeals.
II
We review “de novo the scope of a district court’s authority in a proceeding
under § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Williams, 575 F.3d 1075, 1076 (10th Cir.
2
2009). A district court does not have jurisdiction over a § 3582(c)(2) motion if “a
change in the guidelines would not lower the offense level or criminal-history
category of the defendant.” United States v. White, 765 F.3d 1240, 1246, 1250 (10th
Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted).
On appeal, Rodriguez-Aguirre concedes that he was not eligible for a sentence
reduction. We agree. Because his offense involved more than 90,000 kilograms of
marijuana-equivalent, Amendment 782 did not lower his offense level. Accordingly,
the district court properly held that Rodriguez-Aguirre was not entitled to § 3582
relief. However, because his offense level was unchanged, the district court did not
have jurisdiction and should have dismissed, rather than denied, the motion. See id.
at 1250.1
III
The district court’s order is VACATED. We REMAND with instructions to
dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Rodriguez-Aguirre’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The government’s motion to supplement the
record on appeal is DENIED.
1
Rodriguez-Aguirre also argues that the district court erred in construing his letter
requesting that the court appoint counsel to file a § 3582(c)(2) motion as itself a motion
for a sentence reduction. We do not consider whether the district court permissibly
construed the letter as a motion, because Rodriguez-Aguirre was not eligible for relief
under § 3582, as discussed supra, and any procedural error was harmless. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 52.
3
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
4