United States v. Marroquin-Medina

• Decision Date: 01 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15–12322.,15–12322.
• Citation: 817 F.3d 1285
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Eladio MARROQUIN–MEDINA, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

817 F.3d 1285

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Eladio MARROQUIN–MEDINA, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 15–12322.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 1, 2016.

Michelle Thresher Taylor, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, Roberta Josephina Bodnar, Christopher W. Laforgia, U.S. Attorney's Office, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

Conrad Benjamin Kahn, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender's Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant–Appellant.

Before HULL, JULIE CARNES and BARKSDALE,^* Circuit Judges.

HULL, Circuit Judge:

Defendant Eladio Marroquin–Medina appeals the district court's order ruling on his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Marroquin–Medina's original 72–month sentence represented a downward departure from his advisory guidelines range of 87 to 108 months based on his substantial assistance to the government. The district court applied a 3–level reduction in Marroquin–Medina's offense level in making this downward departure.

In Marroquin–Medina's subsequent § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, the district court applied Amendment 782 and recalculated his new advisory guidelines range as 70 to 87 months. The district court then used a percentage-based approach to reduce and determine Marroquin–Medina's new sentence of 58 months. His appeal presents the issue of whether, in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, a percentage-based approach is the only permissible method of calculating a comparable substantial assistance departure under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B).

I. BACKGROUND

A. Conviction and Sentence

In November 2012, Marroquin–Medina pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(vii) and 846 (Count 1), and one count of conspiracy to engage in money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 2).

The presentence investigation report ("PSI") grouped Counts 1 and 2 and recommended a base offense level of 30, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2S1.1(a)(1), 2D1.1(b)(16), and 2D1.1(c)(4) (the "Drug Quantity Table"). The PSI recommended (1) a 2–level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) because Marroquin–Medina was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1956, and (2) a 3–level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) and (b) for acceptance of responsibility and cooperation with authorities.

With this total offense level of 29 and a criminal history category of I, Marroquin–Medina's advisory guidelines range was 87 to 108 months' imprisonment.¹

Prior to sentencing, the government filed a motion for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) based on substantial assistance Marroquin–Medina had provided. At sentencing, the district court granted the government's motion for a downward departure and reduced Marroquin–Medina's total offense level by 3 levels, resulting in a post-departure total offense level of 26. With a total offense level of 26 and a criminal history category of I, Marroquin–Medina's post-departure advisory guidelines range was 63 to 78 months' imprisonment. The district court ultimately sentenced Marroquin–Medina to a total sentence of 72 months' imprisonment. Marroquin–Medina did not appeal his convictions or his sentence.

B. Section 3582(c)(2) Motion for Sentence Reduction

In April 2015, Marroquin–Medina filed a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Amendment 782 reduced the offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)'s Drug Quantity Table by 2 levels, which reduced the base offense level for most drug offenses. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 782.

Under the new Drug Quantity Table, Marroquin–Medina's amended total offense level became 27, which meant that his amended guidelines range became 70 to 87 months' imprisonment. Because the district court previously departed downward under § 5K1.1 from his original advisory guidelines range due to his substantial assistance, Marroquin–Medina argued that the court should again depart downward from his amended guidelines range to a degree comparable to the original § 5K1.1 departure.

Marroquin–Medina argued that the district court had discretion to exercise various methods for determining what constituted a "comparable" downward departure. Marroquin–Medina asked the district court to exercise its discretion and use a "level-based approach" to determine the degree of its downward departure.

According to Marroquin–Medina, under a "level-based approach," the district court would reduce his amended total offense level of 27 by 3 levels, just as it had done for the § 5K1.1 departure at his original sentencing. With a post-departure total offense level of 24 and a criminal history category of I, Marroquin–Medina's post-departure amended guidelines range would be 51 to 63 months' imprisonment. Marroquin–Medina requested a reduced sentence of 51 months' imprisonment, which was at the bottom end of his post-departure amended guidelines range, as calculated using an offense-level-based approach.

In response, the government agreed that Amendment 782 warranted a reduction in Marroquin–Medina's sentence, and that, under the new Drug Quantity Table, his total offense level was 27 and his amended guidelines range was 70 to 87 months' imprisonment. The government further agreed that a "comparable" § 5K1.1 departure from Marroquin–Medina's amended guidelines range was appropriate. However, the government argued that the Sentencing Guidelines Application Notes required that the district court use only a "percentage-based approach" to determine the degree of its departure.

According to the government, under a "percentage-based approach," the district court would depart downward from the bottom end of the amended guidelines range by the same percentage it had departed downward under § 5K1.1 from the bottom end of the original guidelines range. The government argued that Marroquin–Medina's original 72–month sentence reflected a 17% downward departure from the bottom end of his original advisory guidelines range of 87 to 108 months. The government asked the court to comparably reduce Marroquin–Medina's sentence by 17% from the bottom end of his amended guidelines range of 70 to 87 months, which would result in to 58–month sentence.

In a May 20, 2015 order, the district court granted Marroquin–Medina's motion for a sentence reduction. The district court acknowledged Marroquin–Medina's request that it employ an offense-level-based approach to determine the appropriate degree of departure from the amended guidelines range. The district court also acknowledged the government's contention that the court "must use the ‘percentage-based approach,’ " and the district court then did so. (emphasis added). The district court stated, "Upon consideration of USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), the Court agrees with the Government and will apply a 17% reduction from the bottom of the amended guideline range, resulting in a term of imprisonment of 58 months." Accordingly, the district court reduced Marroquin–Medina's sentence to 58 months.

Marroquin–Medina has appealed from the district court's imposition of the 58–month sentence, contending that the district court's belief that it lacked discretion to employ a method other than the percentage-based approach to calculate his comparable substantial assistance reduction constitutes procedural error.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

We review de novo the district court's conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1258 (11th Cir.2013). Likewise, we review de novo the district court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Fulford, 662 F.3d 1174, 1177 (11th Cir.2011). In interpreting the Guidelines, this Court begins by looking to the language of the Guidelines, considering both the Guidelines themselves and the commentary, and giving that language its ordinary and plain meaning. Id.

B. Departures under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1

The Sentencing Guidelines contain a number of departure provisions. Among them is § 5K1.1, which allows a departure from the advisory guidelines range "[u]pon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another." U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1"Because § 5K1.1 is silent as to the methodology to be used in determining the extent of a substantial assistance departure, the government has discretion in recommending a methodology, and the district court has discretion in deciding what methodology to use once it grants a motion for departure." United States v. Hayes, 762 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir.2014). These methodologies include offense-level-based reductions, month-based reductions, and percentage-based reductions. Id. at 1303–04. A district court has discretion to use any of these methodologies and to determine how much to depart when granting a § 5K1.1 motion.

C. Section 3582(c)(2) and its Relevant Policy Statement

Section § 3582(c)(2) provides that, where a defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that subsequently was lowered by the Sentencing Commission though amendment, the district court "may" reduce the defendant's sentence if such a reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission's applicable policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The applicable policy statement is found at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. To determine the extent of a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2), the district court "shall determine the amended guideline range that would have been applicable to the defendant if the amendment[ ] ... had been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1).

Under § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), district courts in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings are generally prohibited from reducing the defendant's...