US v. Rios-Paz
Decision Date | 22 December 1992 |
Docket Number | No. CR-89-0721.,CR-89-0721. |
Citation | 808 F. Supp. 206 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Andres RIOS-PAZ, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Andres Rios-Paz, pro se.
Miriam Best, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, NY, on the criminal matter, for U.S.
On December 1, 1989, defendant Andres Rios-Paz pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute in excess of 500 grams of cocaine. Based on the calculations in the pre-sentence report,1 on February 7, 1990, this Court sentenced Rios-Paz to 63 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $50.00 special assessment.
By habeas petition, filed December 14, 1992, Rios-Paz moves for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on a recent amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines"). Section 3E1.1 of the Guidelines now provides for an additional one-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility in computing the applicable sentencing range. See U.S.S.G.App. C, Amend. 459 (1992) (effective Nov. 1, 1992).
The relief defendant seeks is beyond the scope of a habeas petition. Section 2255 of Title 28 allows a court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence if the petitioner alleges that:
the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack....
28 U.S.C. § 2255. Rios-Paz does not claim that his sentence suffered from any of those infirmities. Moreover, a sentencing court is required to consider the sentencing guidelines in effect at the sentencing date. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4); United States v. Colon, 961 F.2d 41, 45 (2d Cir.1992). Accordingly, the habeas petition must be dismissed.
However, since it is obvious from the memorandum of law accompanying the petition that Rios-Paz intended to move for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), this Court will treat it as such in light of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Section 3582(c)(2) empowers a court to modify a sentence imposed pursuant to the Guidelines in light of subsequent amendments that would have lowered the applicable sentencing range had they been in effect at the date of sentencing, provided the Sentencing Commission has not issued a policy statement against retroactive application of the guideline amendment.2
Under section 994(a) of Title 28, the Sentencing Commission ("Commission") shall promulgate Guidelines to be used by sentencing courts when imposing sentence upon criminal defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(1). To facilitate application of the Guidelines, the Commission is authorized to issue general policy statements, including whether sentences already imposed can be modified under § 3582(c)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(2)(C). Furthermore, the Commission is obligated "periodically to review and revise" the Guidelines, and, based on its findings, may submit proposed amendments to Congress which become effective on a specified date within a statutorily prescribed period, unless Congress modifies or disapproves of the proposed amendments. 28 U.S.C. § 994(p).
The Supreme Court has recognized that Congress "granted the Commission the unusual explicit power to decide whether and to what extent its amendments reducing sentences will be given retroactive effect under 28 U.S.C. § 994(u)." Braxton v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 111 S.Ct. 1854, 1858, 114 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) ( ). Section 994(u) provides:
If the Commission reduces the term of imprisonment recommended in the guidelines applicable to a particular offense or category of offenses, it shall specify in what circumstances and by what amount the sentences of prisoners serving terms of imprisonment for the offense may be reduced.
28 U.S.C. § 994(u). Section 1B1.10 of the Guidelines contains the general policy statement of the Commission on the retroactivity of amendments to the Guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s. (policy statement) ("§ 1B1.10"). Section 1B1.10(a) provides that all amendments are prospective only, unless specifically enumerated in § 1B1.10(d).
The Circuit has recently declined to rule whether the interplay of § 1B1.10 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) precludes the sentencing court from retroactively applying an amendment not listed in § 1B1.10(d). United States v. Colon, 961 F.2d 41, 45-46 (2d Cir.1992); cf. United States v. Park, 951 F.2d 634, 636 (5th Cir.1992) ( ). This Court, however, concludes that § 1B1.10 is controlling based on the "explicit unusual power" conferred on the Commission to determine the retroactivity of guideline amendments as provided by Congress in 28 U.S.C. § 994(u).
In addition, the policy statement of § 1B1.10 must be accorded significant weight because the Sentencing Commission intended to foreclose modifications of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). "Where ... a policy statement prohibits a district court from taking a specified action, the statement is an authoritative guide to the meaning of the applicable guideline." Williams v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1119, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992).
In Williams, the sentencing court departed upwards from the applicable sentencing range by increasing the defendant's criminal history category to reflect the seriousness of his crime under Guideline § 4A1.3, p.s. (policy statement), based on two outdated convictions and several prior arrests. Id., ___ U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 1117. In affirming the sentence imposed, the Court of Appeals noted that, while the defendant's prior arrest records were improper grounds for departure under the express language of § 4A1.3 (policy statement), the increased sentence was reasonable based on the outdated convictions standing alone. Id., ___ U.S. at ___- ___, 112 S.Ct. at 1117-18. The Court held that the sentencing court incorrectly applied the guidelines by ignoring an express prohibition in the policy statement and that a harmless error analysis applies when a sentencing court considers both proper and improper factors for upward departure. Id., ___ U.S. at ___-___, 112 S.Ct. at 1119-21.
Likewise, in this case, the Commission, by its policy statement in § 1B1.10 prohibits a district court from modifying a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for any amendment not listed in § 1B1.10(d). As of November 1, 1992, Guideline § 3E1.1, entitled Acceptance of Responsibility, now provides:
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 (1992) (emphasis in original). Since Amendment 459 — which added subsection (b) of Guideline § 3E1.1 — is not listed in § 1B1.10(d), this Court is unable to modify Rios-Paz' sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Rios-Paz argues that Amendment 459 should be applied retroactively as it merely "clarifies" existing law. Def's Memo. of Law at 7-8. In United States v. Guerrero, 863 F.2d 245 (2d Cir.1988), the court held that an amendment which serves to "clarify a meaning that was fairly to be drawn from the original version" would be applied retroactively. Id. at 250. See also United States v. Deigert, 916 F.2d 916, 917 (4th Cir.1990) (same); United States v. Restrepo, 903 F.2d 648, 656 (9th Cir.1990) (same), withdrawn in part on other ground on reh'g en banc, 946 F.2d 654 (1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1564, 118 L.Ed.2d 211 (1992). However, defendant's reliance on those decisions is misplaced because each of those courts pointed to the Commission's statement that the amendments were for clarification purposes only. Guerreo, 863 F.2d at 250 ( ); Deigert, 916 F.2d at 917 (); Restrepo, 903 F.2d at 656 ( ); see also United States v. Mooneyham, 938 F.2d 139, 140 (9th Cir.1991) (, )cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 443, 116 L.Ed.2d 461 (1991).
In contrast, it is obvious that Amendment 459 is not a "clarifying amendment" because it does not clarify existing law. In proposing Amendment 459, the Commission stated, "this amendment provides an additional reduction of one level for certain defendants whose acceptance of responsibility includes assistance to the government in the investigation or prosecution of their own misconduct." App. C, Amend 459 (1992).3 Amendment 459 is an intended change in the law to induce criminal defendants to plead early on in the case for purposes of prosecutorial and judicial economy. See U.S.S.G.App. C, Amend. 459 (1992) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martin v. United States
...construe his motion as one for a modification of his term of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). See United States v. Rios–Paz, 808 F.Supp. 206, 207 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (treating Section 2255 motion seeking reduction of sentence based on amendment to Sentencing Guidelines as a motion p......
-
Ebbole v. U.S.
...995 F.2d 323, 324 (1st Cir.1993) (per curiam); United States v. Heard, 810 F.Supp. 242, 243-44 (N.D.Ill.1993); United States v. Rios-Paz, 808 F.Supp. 206, 209 (E.D.N.Y.1992). 3. Retroactivity. Because we consider the 1992 amendment a change and not a clarification, we next consider whether ......
-
Garcia v. United States
...for a reduction of a sentence, codified in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), is "beyond the scope of a habeas petition." United States v. Rios-Paz, 808 F. Supp. 206, 207 (E.D.N.Y. 1992). See also United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 513 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582......
-
Nabe v. United States, 11-CV-05526 (CBA)
...petitioner's § 2255 petition failed because it sought a sentence reduction due to a recent USSG amendment); United States v. Rios-Paz, 808 F. Supp. 206, 209-210 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (construing a § 2255 petition seeking a reduction of petitioner's sentence due to a recent amendment to the USSG a......