UNITED STATES v. VASQUEZ (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.2021-03-01No. 20-1817

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal is dismissed because challenges to procedural errors at the original sentencing that are unrelated to the Guidelines amendment are outside the scope of review available in a sentencing reduction proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

In 1998, Joel Vasquez received a 660-month sentence for narcotics, robbery, and firearm offenses. After the Sentencing Guidelines were amended to reduce base offense levels for narcotics crimes, the district court granted his request to lower his sentence by 68 months under the applicable statute. On appeal, Vasquez sought to challenge other aspects of his original 1998 sentence that were unrelated to the Guidelines amendment, including claims about how the Guidelines were applied before they became advisory and the treatment of his mandatory minimum firearm sentences.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the proceedings were limited in scope to addressing only those portions of the sentence affected by the Guidelines amendment. Vasquez's challenges to procedural errors in his original sentencing were outside the permitted scope of review in this type of reduction proceeding. The court emphasized that neither the district court nor the appellate court had authority to consider sentencing errors unrelated to the Guidelines amendment that prompted the motion.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Scope of review in sentencing reduction proceedings under § 3582(c)(2)
Whether procedural errors unrelated to Guidelines amendments may be raised on appeal
Application of Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory versus advisory

Procedural posture

Vasquez appealed the district court's amended judgment following the court's grant of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on a Guidelines amendment.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

SUMMARY ORDER

In 1998, Defendant-Appellant Joel Vasquez was sentenced to 660 months’ imprisonment on his convictions for numerous narcotics, robbery, and firearm offenses. Years after his sentencing, Amendment 782 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines reduced the base offense level for his narcotics convictions. On June 3, 2020, the District Court (Dearie, J.) granted Vasquezs motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in light of Amendment 782, and reduced the sentence on his narcotics convictions by 68 months, the maximum permitted under § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Vasquez now appeals from the amended criminal judgment reflecting the reduced sentence. He argues that this Court should grant him relief for alleged errors in his overall sentence that are unrelated to Amendment 782, notwithstanding that he elected not to raise those issues before the District Court—because the District Court lacked the authority to entertain them. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our dismissal of the appeal.

On appeal, Vasquez does not challenge the District Courts grant of his motion for a reduction in light of Amendment 782. Rather, he raises two unrelated issues pertaining to his original sentence: (1) the District Courts treatment of the Guidelines as mandatory at his 1998 sentencing before they were rendered advisory in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); and (2) the District Courts refusal to consider, under Dean v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1170, 197 L.Ed.2d 490 (2017), the severe effect of the consecutive mandatory minimum sentences of the firearm convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

We must dismiss this appeal because it is not a proper vehicle for raising these two issues. Before the District Court was only a motion to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) “narrow[ly]” authorizes courts to reduce the portion of a sentence impacted by a Guidelines amendment. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-26, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). “[N]either the district court nor this Court is free to address, in a proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), [a] defendants arguments regarding procedural errors at his original, now-final sentencing” if those purported errors are unrelated to any Guidelines amendment. United States v. Mock, 612 F.3d 133, 135 (2d Cir. 2010); see also id. at 138 (“[R]egardless of whether there is merit to defendants argument that the district court committed procedural error ․ at his original sentencing, neither the district court nor this Court is authorized to consider that contention in the context of a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).”). “Because the aspects of his sentence that [Vasquez] seeks to correct were not affected by the [Guidelines] amendment ․ they are outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2)․” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683. Johnson v. United States, 623 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2010), the sole case cited by Vasquez in support of his contrary position, is not persuasive. In Johnson, we addressed only the question of when a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition qualifies as second or successive, not the issue here of what sentencing errors may be raised in an appeal from an amended criminal judgment following a § 3582(c)(2) motion.

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS the appeal.