Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01875/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01875-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

MIGUEL ALVAREZ-ADAME,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12cv1875-LAB and

07cr59-LAB-1

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

REDUCTION OF SENTENCE

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Petitioner Miguel Alvarez-Adame was convicted of being a deported alien found in the

United States. After an appeal, he was resentenced on March 19, 2010 to 110 months’

imprisonment followed by three years’ supervised release. He took a second appeal, but this

time his sentence was affirmed. On July 30, 2012, he filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3852(c) to reduce the sentence. He relies on Amendment 754, which amended

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) of the sentencing guidelines. 

Under § 3582, the Court cannot modify a term of imprisonment once imposed, with

certain limited exceptions. Alvarez-Adame relies on § 3582(c)(2)’s exception, which applies

in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of

imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been

lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), . . . if

such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the

Sentencing Commission. 

/ / /

- 1 - 12cv1875 and 07cr59

Case 3:12-cv-01875-LAB Document 2 Filed 02/04/13 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

The qualification “if such reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by

the Sentencing Commission” means that the exception only applies where the Sentencing

Commission has made its amendment retroactive. Freeman v. United States, 131 S.Ct.

2685, 2690–91 (2011) (explaining that this exception was “enacted to permit defendants

whose Guidelines sentencing range has been lowered by retroactive amendment to move

for a sentence reduction “); Dillon v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690 (2010) (holding that

§ 3582(c)(2)’s exception applies where the lowered sentencing range has been made

retroactive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(u)).

Amendment 754, effective November 1, 2011, is not retroactive. United States v.

Rodriguez-Garcia, 459 Fed.Appx. 754, 756 (10 Cir. 2012); United States v. Moran-Rosario,

th

466 Fed. Appx. 257, 257 n.* (4 Cir. 2012). The Court therefore has no power to reduce th

Alvarez-Adame’s sentence at this point.

The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 1, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv1875 and 07cr59

Case 3:12-cv-01875-LAB Document 2 Filed 02/04/13 Page 2 of 2