Amendment 782 Motion Reconsideration

Reinaldo Rivera moved for 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) relief based on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, commonly known as “drugs minus 2.” The district court granted the motion and reduced his sentence to 420 months from LIFE. But in doing so, the district court believed Rivera’s mandatory minimum was 30 years for his CCE conviction. This was error because Rivera had no priors under 18 U.S.C. § 848. His correct mandatory minimum was 20 years.

Amendment 782 Motion Reconsideration Required Because Judge Misunderstood Mandatory Minimum

The Government argued that the district court’s misapprehension of the mandatory minimum did not constitute plain error. The Second Circuit disagreed.

The court noted that “the mere fact that Rivera's sentence was greater than the correct minimum sentence will not, without more, suffice to show that the district court would have reached the same conclusion regardless of the error.” However, the court treated the error as prejudicial because “based on the record before us, we are not convinced that that the error did not influence Rivera's sentence.” The case was accordingly remanded. United States v. Rivera, No. 15-4141 (2d Cir. 2017).

About Brandon Sample

Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon’s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Recommended for you

Career Offender Enhancement Cannot Be Based On Texas Possession With Intent To Distribute Conviction

United States v. Tanksley – Career Offender Enhancement  : Dantana Tanksley was previously convicted in Texas under Section 481.112(a) of the Texas controlled substances act of possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He was later enhanced as a career offender under federal sentencing guidelines. Under the federal sentencing guidelines, an individual can be…

Read More about Career Offender Enhancement Cannot Be Based On Texas Possession With Intent To Distribute Conviction

Attorney Abandonment Claim Remanded For A Hearing

Mark Christeson filed a motion to re-open his habeas proceedings under Rule 60(b) arguing that his attorney’s failure to timely submit his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (used by state prisoners but similar to a 2255) constituted attorney abandonment. The abandonment issue was key to resolving whether “extraordinary circumstances” existed to warrant granting Rule 60…

Read More about Attorney Abandonment Claim Remanded For A Hearing

Oregon Drug Delivery Conviction Not A Federal “Controlled Substance Offense” For Career Offender Purposes

Oregon drug delivery conviction under Oregon Revised Statutes 475.992(1)(a) is not a “controlled substance offense” under federal law, according to the Ninth Circuit. Sandoval v. Yates, No. 13-71784 (9th Cir. 2017). This is an important case for criminal defendants because of its impact on individuals with career offender enhancements. The court held that Oregon drug delivery…

Read More about Oregon Drug Delivery Conviction Not A Federal “Controlled Substance Offense” For Career Offender Purposes