Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02428/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02428-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Tolendano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 15-2428

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RAFAEL 

TOLENDANO

a/k/a David Fields

a/k/a David Cohen 

a/k/a Elias Lizardo 

a/k/a Rabbi Israel

 Rafael Tolendano,

Appellant

Appeal from the District Court for the District of New Jersey

(No. 2-02-cr-00421-002)

District Judge: Hon. Stanley R. Chesler

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 19, 2016

Before: FISHER, CHAGARES, and COWEN, Circuit Judges.

(Filed March 2, 2016)

____________

OPINION

____________

 

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2428 Document: 003112221386 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2016
2

CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.

Rafael Tolendano1appeals a District Court order denying a sentence reduction

motion made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 782 to the United 

States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.” or “Guidelines”). For the following reasons, 

we will affirm the order of the District Court. 

I.

We write solely for the parties and therefore recite only the facts necessary to our 

disposition. Tolendano is currently serving a 225-month sentence after pleading guilty to 

one count of conspiracy to import drugs, namely ecstasy, into the United States in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(b)(3), and 963. Presentence Report (“PSR”) ¶ 4. 

He was part of an international drug smuggling organization that exported ecstasy from 

the Netherlands to the United States and other countries. PSR ¶ 12. Tolendano was 

responsible for about 200,000 units of ecstasy, around 40 kilograms, which is equivalent

to 20,000 kilograms of marijuana for purposes of sentencing. PSR ¶ 36. While in 

custody after arrest, Tolendano allegedly solicited a cooperating witness to kill two 

prison guards to help him escape from prison. PSR ¶ 41.

Tolendano has committed other crimes. In May 2005, he was sentenced in the 

District of Vermont for smuggling an alien and for failure to appear. Gov’t Br. 1-2; PSR 

¶¶ 71-73; Appendix (“App.”) 36. That crime added additional time to his 225-month 

 

1 Appellant explains that the correct spelling of his name is “Raphael Toledano,” not 

“Rafael Tolendano.” Tolendano Br. 3 n.2. He has had several aliases, including 

“Raphael Tolendano,” “Elias Nathanael Lizardo,” “David Fields,” “David Cohen,” and 

“Rabbi Israel.” Presentence Report 2. Because the Judgment of Conviction in this case 

spells his name as “Rafael Tolendano,” we will proceed with that spelling.

Case: 15-2428 Document: 003112221386 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2016
3

sentence, so he is now serving a total of 237 months of imprisonment. App. 36; Gov’t 

Br. 2. He has also been convicted of several theft, drug, and fraud charges in Canada. 

PSR ¶ 57-70.

2

 

Prior to sentencing, the Probation Department calculated a range of 324 to 405

months using an Offense Level of 41 and Criminal History Category I. PSR ¶ 101.

3

 This 

calculation included enhancements for a supervisory role, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), and for 

obstruction of justice based on his plots in jail, U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. PSR ¶¶ 41-43, 48-49. 

Tolendano sought a downward adjustment, objecting to the supervisory role 

enhancement, and the Government sought an upward departure, arguing that his criminal 

history was understated. App. 75-76. After discussions, both parties agreed to withdraw 

their motions, and the Government agreed that it would not oppose a three-point 

downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. App. 75-76. Subsequently, the 

District Court accepted the parties’ assessment and calculated an advisory Guidelines 

range of 188 to 235 months of imprisonment, using an Offense Level of 36 and Criminal 

History Category I. The District Court ultimately imposed a criminal sentence of 225 

months of imprisonment, focusing on the substantial amount of drugs involved and harm 

caused by Tolendano, as well as the businesslike manner in which he conducted his role 

in the criminal enterprise. App. 87-91. 

 

2 While these foreign convictions do not count for purposes of calculating his criminal 

history, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(h), they can be considered for other purposes such as whether a 

departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 should be granted. 

3 The statutory maximum of the crime, as the Probation Department points out, would 

limit the range to 240 months. PSR ¶ 101; 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(3). 

Case: 15-2428 Document: 003112221386 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2016
4

Tolendano filed a sentence reduction motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based 

on Amendment 7824to the Guidelines on March 9, 2015. App 15, 29. Tolendano sought 

a two-level reduction of his base offense level from 36 to 34, resulting in an advisory

Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months. App 15, 29. The Government opposed the 

reduction on public safety grounds and on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. 

App. 26-28. 

At a June 4, 2015 hearing, the District Court denied Tolendano’s sentencing 

reduction motion. App. 29-35. After considering the presentence report and materials 

supporting the Government’s position, the Court determined that Tolendano had been 

“treated generously” in the matter. App. 30. The Court noted the negotiations between 

the Government and Tolendano with respect to the earlier motions for upward and 

downward departures. App. 30-31. The Court reflected on Tolendano’s education and 

religious training, and described his considerable criminal record. App. 30-31. It

reviewed the record of Tolendano’s “extensive conspiracy to import Ecstasy,” as well as 

the informant’s transcript of Tolendano’s alleged plot to escape from prison. App. 30-31. 

The Court was “extremely dubious” and “extraordinarily suspicious” of Tolendano’s 

supposed transformation since his previous sentencing. App. 32. It explained that “Mr. 

Tolendano has demonstrated that he is a businesslike manipulator in the past and this 

Court is not persuaded that anything has changed that.” App. 35. 

 

4 Amendment 782 reduced the offense levels by two levels for most drug quantities under 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G. App. C., Amendment 782. This Amendment is 

retroactively applied with an effective date of November 1, 2015 or later. U.S.S.G. § 

1B1.10(d),(e)(1). 

Case: 15-2428 Document: 003112221386 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/02/2016
5

The District Court entered its judgment on June 4, 2015. App. 7-8. Tolendano 

filed a timely Notice of Appeal on June 9, 2015. App. 1-2.

II.5

A District Court is permitted to reduce a sentence that was based on a Sentencing 

Guideline range that has since been lowered. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Under 18

U.S.C. § 3582,

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), upon motion of the defendant or the 

Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the 

term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to 

the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable 

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added).

Section 3582(c)(2) does not allow a full resentencing of the defendant but only 

permits a sentence reduction “within the narrow bounds established by the Commission.” 

See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010). The inquiry under § 3582(c)(2) 

has two steps. First, a district court must determine whether a prisoner is eligible for 

 

5 The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we 

have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.

We review a District Court’s decision not to reduce a sentence under an abuse of 

discretion standard. United States v. Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 416, 420 (3d Cir. 2012) 

(“[W]hen the district court determines that a defendant is eligible for relief [under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)] but declines to reduce his sentence, our review is for an abuse of 

discretion.”). “As the district court is in the best position to determine the appropriate 

sentence, we may not reverse simply because we would have imposed a different 

sentence. Rather, we must ensure that the sentence, even if beyond the guideline range, 

is within the broad range of possible sentences that can be considered reasonable in light 

of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Styer, 573 F.3d 151, 155 (3d Cir. 2009)

(citation omitted) (quotation marks omitted).

Case: 15-2428 Document: 003112221386 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/02/2016
6

sentence modification. Id. at 826-27. There is no dispute that Tolendano is eligible for a 

sentencing reduction because had Amendment 782 been in effect at the time of his initial 

sentencing, his base offense level would have been 34, resulting in a Guidelines range of 

151 to 188. See id.; see also U.S.S.G. App. C, Amendment 782. Second, if a defendant 

is eligible for a reduction, the district court considers “any applicable § 3553(a) factors” 

to determine if the reduction is authorized “in whole or in part under the particular 

circumstances of the case.” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827. The § 3553(a) factors are 

supplemented by public safety concerns posed by a reduction of the defendant’s sentence. 

United States v. Styer, 573 F.3d 151, 155 (3d Cir. 2009). 

Tolendano argues that the District Court abused its discretion for essentially three 

reasons: (1) the District Court failed to consider the reasons for Amendment 782; (2) the

§ 3553(a) factors, particularly when looking to Tolendano’s post-sentencing conduct, 

favor a reduction; and (3) a sentence reduction does not implicate public safety because 

Tolendano’s likelihood of recidivism is low. 

A.

Tolendano argues that the District Court abused its discretion because it “never 

acknowledged the new Guidelines range or the reasons behind Amendment 782.” 

Tolendano Br. 15. Tolendano’s argument on this point is based on the fact that two §

3553(a) factors include the sentencing range from the Guidelines and any pertinent policy 

statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4), (5). As a threshold matter, the District Court is not 

required to consider every § 3553(a) factor but the factors “to the extent they are 

applicable.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Therefore, each factor may not always be applicable

Case: 15-2428 Document: 003112221386 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/02/2016
7

or necessary for consideration. Even so, from the transcript, it is clear that the District 

Court considered the new Guidelines range. For example, Tolendano’s counsel told the 

Court the new range immediately before the District Court provided its own analysis. 

App. 29.6 Similarly, the District Court’s determination effectuated the purpose of 

Amendment 782, even if it did not explicitly recite the rationale of it. One of the aims of 

Amendment 782 is to place a greater emphasis on a defendant’s role and conduct in a 

crime — rather than merely the quantity of drugs involved in a crime. U.S.S.G. App. C, 

Amendment 782, Reason for Amendment. The District Court explained that it was 

“extremely dubious” and “extraordinarily suspicious” that Tolendano had transformed 

himself from a “businesslike manipulator.” App. 32-33. This demonstrates that, 

consistent with the purpose of Amendment 782, the District Court focused on 

Tolendano’s role in the crime, not the amount of drugs involved. A reasonable District 

Court could rely on the factors as it did, arriving at the outcome it did. This decision

should not be disturbed. There was no abuse of discretion.

B.

Tolendano argues that other factors favored a reduction, suggesting that the 

District Court only relied on the history and characteristics of the defendant at the time of 

the original sentencing, and ignored any subsequent rehabilitation. The parties disagree 

about whether a district court is required to consider post-sentencing conduct under §

3582(c)(2) as an applicable § 3553(a) factor. We do not need to decide that issue because 

 

6 Furthermore, at the beginning of the hearing, the District Court explained that the matter 

was an application for a reduction of sentence “pursuant to the recent amendments to the 

guidelines.” App. 19. 

Case: 15-2428 Document: 003112221386 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/02/2016
8

here the District Court did consider Tolendano’s post-sentencing conduct. The District 

Court expressed skepticism “that he has somehow now seen the light and he now 

understands his responsibilities to society” and “the remarkable transformation that Mr. 

Tolendano has undergone while in prison.” App. 32. The Court heard testimony from 

two witnesses about Tolendano’s current character. App. 19-22. The Court had before it 

Tolendano’s Bureau of Prison’s progress report. App. 24, 36-49. The Court heard 

attorney argument about how Tolendano participates in religious life in jail and that he is 

a model inmate. App. 24-25. The District Court, therefore, did consider Tolendano’s 

post-sentencing conduct.

Placing Tolendano’s post-sentencing conduct alongside other § 3553(a) factors, it 

is clear that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. Section 3553(a)(1)-(2) focuses

on the nature of the offense, the defendant’s criminal history, and the need for the 

imposition of a sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The District Court reviewed Tolendano’s 

plot to kill guards and escape. App. 26. It explained that despite being well-educated 

and financially stable, Tolendano chose a life of crime. App. 30-32. It considered 

Tolendano’s considerable criminal history, the “businesslike” manner of his Ecstasy

operations, and expressed doubt that he had rehabilitated itself. App. 30-33. The District 

Court had discretion to evaluate these considerations as it did. It did not abuse its 

discretion.

C.

Finally, Tolendano argues that the District Court erred because it failed to consider 

whether Tolendano continues to remain a public safety threat. This argument is related to 

Case: 15-2428 Document: 003112221386 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/02/2016
9

Tolendano’s contentions that the District Court did not consider his post-sentence 

conduct. The Government strongly disagrees with the appropriateness of citing general 

studies on recidivism, as Tolendano has done. It is not necessary to determine whether 

these studies are relevant. As previously explained, the District Court considered the 

record and reasonably concluded that Tolendano had not rehabilitated himself. App. 32-

33. Considering the scope of Tolendano’s criminal conspiracy, as well as the plot to kill 

guards and escape, it is reasonable that the District Court concluded that he remained a 

public safety threat and did not “now understand[] his responsibilities to society.” App. 

32. It was not an abuse of discretion for the District Court to deny Tolendano’s motion, 

especially because it was “satisfied that there’s nothing on the record . . . which warrants 

disturbing that sentence.” App. 35.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order. 

Case: 15-2428 Document: 003112221386 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/02/2016