United States v. Higinio Castillo

BLD-085 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-3948
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
HIGINIO CASTILLO, a/k/a Gordo, a/k/a Gordito,
a/k/a Little Man, a/k/a Piting, a/k/a Donald
Higinio Castillo,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2-12-cr-00230-003)
District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis
____________________________________
Submitted for a Decision on the Issuance of a Certificate of Appealability or
for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 28, 2016
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 10, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Higinio Castillo pleaded guilty in federal court to kidnapping, brandishing a
firearm while kidnapping, and a variety of drug trafficking charges. In June 2015, he
received two consecutively running sentences of 120 months. Castillo’s aggregate
sentence was much lower than the advisory Guidelines range of 382 to 447 months.
Over a year later, Castillo filed a self-styled “motion requesting to be re-sentenced
concurrently” to “afford [him] the ‘grace’ of being released from prison in his thirties,
instead of his [forties].” Castillo cited no legal authority to support his motion other than
Guidelines Amendment 794, which amended the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 (lower
offense level for “mitigating role” in criminal activity) several months before Castillo
was sentenced. The District Court denied Castillo’s motion and he appealed.
Our clerk advised that we would consider whether a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) is required for this appeal. We conclude that a COA is unnecessary because,
among other reasons, Castillo’s motion may be construed as seeking relief under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Taylor, 627 F.3d 674, 676 (7th Cir. 2010). We
thus exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We will summarily affirm the District Court’s September 21, 2016 order because
this appeal presents no substantial question. See Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P.
10.6. Castillo provides no basis for disturbing the District Court’s decision, and we
discern none from the record below.
2