Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00959/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00959-0/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

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13CR983-LAB

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

REDUCTION OF SENTENCE

[Doc. Nos. 46 & 48] 

vs

GABRIEL RUIZ-GERARDO,

Defendant.

In 2013, this Court sentenced Gabriel Ruiz-Gerardo to 70 months in custody after he

pled guilty to possessing11.89 kilograms of actual methamphetamine with the intent to

distribute it. Ruiz-Gerardo has now filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 22 U.S.C.

§ 2255 [Doc. 46] and a second motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582

[Doc. 48].

Beginning with the § 2255 motion, it comes more than a year after Ruiz-Gerardo’s

sentencing and is therefore late. See 22 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Ruiz-Gerrardo doesn’t argue that

any exception to the one year time bar applies, and none is apparent. Besides, Ruiz-Gerardo

waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence if the Court followed the plea agreement

he made with the Government, which the Court did. No relief is available under § 2255.

As far as Ruiz-Gerardo’s alternative motion to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c),

he is ineligible. Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes a court discretion to reduce a defendant’s

original sentence when the sentence is “based on” a guideline range that has subsequently

- 1 - 13CR983

Case 3:17-cv-00959-LAB Document 2 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

been lowered by an amendment to the Guidelines. After Ruiz-Gerardo was sentenced, the

U.S. Sentencing Commission approved Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, which lowered

the sentencing range for most drug offenses by 2 levels. The Commission also voted to

make the changes retroactive. But Amendment 782 doesn’t apply to Ruiz-Gerardo’s original

sentence since he admitted that he possessed for distribution more than 4.5 kilograms of

actual methamphetamine and Amendment 782 did not lower the Guidelines for such large

amounts of drugs. 

In addition, in imposing the original sentence the Court granted a 4-level Fast Track

departure and a 17-month variance from the low end of Ruiz-Gerardo’s applicable Guideline

range. When those concessions are backed out of his amended Guideline range, as they

must be, see United States v. Aragon-Rodriguez, 624 Fed. Appx. 542, *3, 2015 U.S. App.

LEXIS 21377 (9th Cir. Nov. 19, 2015) (the only Chapter Five departure that counts in

calculating a defendant’s amended Guideline range under § 3582(c) is for substantial

assistance), the low end of the amended Guideline range remains higher than the sentence

that the Court originally imposed. A court may not reduce a sentence under 3582(c)(2)

unless the low end of the amended Guideline range is less than the sentence originally

imposed. Here it’s not. 

In sum, Ruiz-Gerardo is not eligible to have his sentence reduced under either code

section he relies on. His motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 14, 2017

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13CR983

Case 3:17-cv-00959-LAB Document 2 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2