Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01609/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01609-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN CARLOS ARREDONDOQUEVEDO,

Petitioner,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

CASE NOS. 18cr2292-LAB

 19cv1609-LAB

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR 

RESENTENCING [Dkt. 29]

Juan Carlos Arredondo-Quevedo has filed a timely Petition for Resentencing under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255. Arredondo-Quevedo argues, and the United States agrees, that the 

96-month sentence imposed by this Court in 2018 was plain error because the 

Sentencing Guidelines range used by the Court was based on three California convictions 

from the 1990s that should not have “scored.” Because Arredondo-Quevedo’s period of 

incarceration for those offenses ran concurrently and ended in 2000, these convictions 

did not “result[ ] in the defendant being incarcerated during any part of [the] fifteen-year 

period” preceding his April 25, 2018 arrest for his current offense, violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326. See Sentencing Guidelines § 4A1.2(e)(1). 

The Court agrees with the parties that these convictions should not have “scored” 

for purposes of determining Arredondo-Quevedo’s Guidelines range. It also agrees that 

the failure to accurately calculate the Guidelines range affected the sentence the Court

ultimately imposed. See Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1345 (2016)

Case 3:19-cv-01609-LAB Document 2 Filed 12/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(“When a defendant is sentenced under an incorrect Guidelines range—whether or not 

the defendant's ultimate sentence falls within the correct range—the error itself can, and 

most often will, be sufficient to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome 

absent the error.”). Petitioner’s original Presentence Report placed him in Criminal 

History Category Six and gave him 27 points under the Guidelines, which resulted in a 

sentencing range of 130 to 162 months. The parties agree that Petitioner should have 

instead been placed in Criminal History Category Four and received only 19 points under 

the Guidelines, which would result in a significantly lower range of 46 to 57 months. 

Because Petitioner’s 96-month sentence is nearly double the high end of this range, the 

Court concludes that the error was material and that Arredondo-Quevedo should be 

resentenced using the correct Guidelines range. 

* * * 

Because the Court finds that Arredondo-Quevedo’s sentence was calculated in 

error, it is ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s Petition for Resentencing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is GRANTED (Dkt. 

29);

2. Petitioner’s sentence is VACATED. However, all terms and provisions of the 

original judgment remain in effect;

3. The United States Probation Office shall file a copy of the original Presentence 

Report and a supplement to the Presentence Report advising the Court of any 

relevant information pertaining to Petitioner’s time in custody and including a 

sentencing recommendation in accordance with this Order by January 3, 2020; 

and

4. A resentencing hearing will be set for January 27, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. before the 

undersigned. Should the parties wish to file memoranda pertaining to the 

resentencing, they must do so on or before January 7, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01609-LAB Document 2 Filed 12/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2