Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02435/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02435-0/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

JESUS ABRIL-AMADOR,

Petitioner, 

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Criminal No. 09-CR-2633-L

Civil No. 10-CV-2435-L

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

MODIFICATION OF TERM OF

IMPRISONMENT PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(2)

[Doc. No. 25]

On November 24, 2010, Petitioner Jesus Abril-Amador (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se,

filed a Motion to Reduce Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Petitioner’s motion is

based upon the November 1, 2010 Amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The

Government has filed a response and opposition and United States Probation has filed a

responsive memorandum. Petitioner has not filed a reply. For the reasons set forth below, the

Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion.

BACKGROUND

On August 3, 2009, Petitioner pled guilty to a one-count information charging him with

Attempted Entry After Deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Applying the

advisory Guidelines in effect at the time of Petitioner’s sentencing, the Court determined the

advisory range was 63-78 months based on an offense level of 19 and a criminal history category

of VI. After considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court sentenced Petitioner to 48

Case 3:10-cv-02435-L Document 2 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 3
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

2

months of imprisonment. 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner now moves for a reduction of his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c),

based on Amendments 740 and 742 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Amendment 740 addressed

downward departures for cultural assimilation and Amendment 742 eliminated the “recency”

points assessed by U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). Petitioner also asks the Court to take into consideration

a downward departure for post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts. 

First, Petitioner is ineligible for a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

because the Sentencing Commission has not given Amendments 740 and 742 retroactive effect.

A court may reduce a defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) if the sentence was based on a

sentencing range that has been subsequently amended by the Sentencing Commission. In

determining whether a sentence should be modified under § 3582(c)(2), the Court must follow a

two-step approach. Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691 (2010). First, the court must

determine that a reduction is consistent with the policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id. Second, the court must consider whether the authorized

reduction is warranted according to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id.

Section 1B1.10 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines states “A reduction in the

defendant’s term of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not

authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if: (A) none of the amendments listed in subsection (c)

is applicable to the defendant; or (B) an amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the

effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2). 

Neither Amendment 740 nor 742 are listed under subsection (c). See U.S.S.G. §1B1.10(c). 

Therefore, these amendments cannot be applied retroactively. Accordingly, the Court does not

have the authority to modify Petitioner’s sentence. 

Second, post-sentence rehabilitative efforts are not an appropriate basis for downward

departure. Section 5K2.19 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines states: “Post-sentencing

rehabilitative efforts, even if exceptional, undertaken by a defendant after imposition of a term of

imprisonment for the instant offense are not an appropriate basis for a downward departure when

Case 3:10-cv-02435-L Document 2 Filed 06/03/11 Page 2 of 3
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

3

resentencing the defendant for that offense.” U.S.S.G. § 5k2.19. Therefore, the Court declines

Petitioner’s request for a downward departure for his post-sentence rehabilitative efforts. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 3, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPIES TO: 

PETITIONER

Case 3:10-cv-02435-L Document 2 Filed 06/03/11 Page 3 of 3