United States v. Bennie C. Rivera

Case: 20-10375 Date Filed: 07/31/2020 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10375
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:04-cr-00104-JA-LRH-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BENNIE C. RIVERA,
a.k.a. Mario Quinones,
a.k.a. Carlos Alberto Quinones,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 31, 2020)
Before GRANT, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 20-10375 Date Filed: 07/31/2020 Page: 2 of 5
Bennie Rivera, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s two orders (1)
denying his motion for relief under the First Step Act and (2) denying his motion
for reconsideration. The Government has responded by moving to dismiss the
appeal as untimely, for summary affirmance, and to stay the briefing schedule.
I.
The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely is GRANTED
to the extent Rivera seeks review of the District Court’s October 22, 2019 order
denying his motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act. See Fed. R.
App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (providing that the time for a defendant to appeal in a
criminal case is 14 days). Because the government has raised the issue of
timeliness and invoked the rule as to that order, “we must apply the time limits of
Rule 4(b).” United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009).
Rivera’s motion for reconsideration is dated November 28, 2019, 37 days after the
Court’s order. Filing a motion for reconsideration can extend the Rule 4(b) time
for appeal until the Court rules on the motion, but only if the motion is filed within
14 days of the order being reconsidered. See United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d
1229, 1230 (11th Cir. 1985) (“A motion for reconsideration of the denial of a Rule
35 motion must be filed within the period of time allotted for the filing of a notice
of an appeal in order to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.”). Because
2
Case: 20-10375 Date Filed: 07/31/2020 Page: 3 of 5
Rivera did not file his motion within that time, his eventual appeal of the District
Court’s order — mailed January 24, 2020 — is untimely.1
II.
Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of one of the parties
is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to
the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is
frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
1969). 2 An appeal is frivolous if it is “without arguable merit either in law or
fact.” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002).
The Fair Sentencing Act, enacted on August 3, 2010, amended 21 U.S.C. §§
841(b)(1) and 960(b) to reduce the sentencing disparity between cocaine base and
powder cocaine offenses. Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, §§
2(a)-(b); 124 Stat. 2372. Section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act changed the quantity
of crack cocaine necessary to trigger a 10-year mandatory minimum from 50
1
Rivera’s appeal of the Court’s second order, which denied Rivera’s motion for
reconsideration on January 3, 2020, is also untimely, as the appeal was filed 21 days later.
However, because the delay falls within the 30-day window within which a District Court may
extend time to file a notice of appeal if excusable neglect or good cause is shown, Fed. R. App.
P. 4(b)(4), the Government instead argues that the order should be summarily affirmed because
Rivera’s arguments are plainly without merit. This would obviate the need to remand the case to
determine whether Rivera can demonstrate excusable neglect. See 11th Cir. R. 42-4. (“If it shall
appear to the court at any time that an appeal is frivolous and entirely without merit, the appeal
may be dismissed.”).
2
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this
Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior
to the creation of the Eleventh Circuit on September 30, 1981.
3
Case: 20-10375 Date Filed: 07/31/2020 Page: 4 of 5
grams to 280 grams and the quantity necessary to trigger a 5-year mandatory
minimum from 5 grams to 28 grams. Id. § 2(a)(1)-(2); see also 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), (B)(iii). These amendments were not made retroactive to
defendants who were sentenced prior to the enactment of the Act. United States v.
Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377 (11th Cir. 2012).
In 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act, which makes retroactive the
statutory penalties for covered offenses enacted under the Fair Sentencing Act. See
First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194. Under §
404(b) of the First Step Act, a district court “that imposed a sentence for a covered
offense may . . . impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair
Sentencing Act . . . were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.”
Id. § 404(b). Under § 404(a), a “covered offense” is “a violation of a Federal
criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by section 2 or 3
of the Fair Sentencing Act . . . that was committed before August 3, 2010.” Id.
§ 404(a). The First Step Act further provides that “[n]othing in this section shall
be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.” Id.
§ 404(c).
There is no question that Rivera is ineligible for relief under the First Step
Act because the offense for which he was sentenced is not a “covered offense”
under the Act. Id. § 404(a). The First Step Act and, by extension, the Fair
4
Case: 20-10375 Date Filed: 07/31/2020 Page: 5 of 5
Sentencing Act only address the sentencing disparity between cocaine base and
powder cocaine offenses. See id. § 404(b); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). Neither
provision allows for reduced sentences for convictions concerning heroin, which is
the conviction Rivera is currently serving.3
There is no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, and the
Government’s position is correct as a matter of law. See Groendyke, 406 F.2d at
1162. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED and its motion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.
3
Rivera argues that the First Step Act nonetheless applies because his mandatory
minimum sentence was increased due to a 1994 conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute 5 grams of crack cocaine — a “covered offense.” See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A);
First Step Act § 404(a); Fair Sentencing Act § 2(a)(2). Rivera is incorrect; nothing in the text of
the First Step Act extends the retroactive effect of the Fair Sentencing Act to covered offenses
that are used as sentencing enhancements for non-covered offenses. See First Step Act § 404(b)
(“A court that imposed a sentence for a covered offense may . . . impose a reduced sentence as if
sections 2 and 3 of the [Fair Sentencing Act] were in effect at the time the covered offense was
committed.”) (emphasis added).
5