Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03547/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03547-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cosme Ordaz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

DLD-182 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

____________ 

No. 15-3547 

____________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

COSME ORDAZ, 

 Appellant 

 __________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Crim. No. 98-cr-00587-16) 

District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis 

__________________________________ 

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 

March 17, 2016 

Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR., and SLOVITER1

, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: May 2, 2016) 

____________ 

OPINION* 

____________ 

 

1 The Honorable Dolores K. Sloviter participated in the decision in this case. Judge 

Sloviter assumed inactive status on April 4, 2016 after the submission date, but before the 

filing of the opinion. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 46(d) and Third Circuit I.O.P. Chapter 12. 

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

constitute binding precedent. 

Case: 15-3547 Document: 003112279694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2016
2 

PER CURIAM 

 Cosme Ordaz appeals from an order of the District Court granting, but only in 

part, his motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). For the 

reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm. 

 In 1998, Ordaz was charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania with conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and use of a telephone in furtherance of a drug conspiracy, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on 

both counts. Ordaz was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 360 months. We 

affirmed the conviction, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing in light 

of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Ordaz, 398 F.3d 

236 (3d Cir.2005). On remand, Ordaz was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 298 

months. In calculating the applicable Guidelines range, the sentencing court found that 

Ordaz’s criminal activity involved between 5 and 15 kilograms of cocaine, which 

produced a base offense level of 32. Additionally, the court assessed a 3-level 

enhancement for his managerial role in the conspiracy, bringing his offense level up to 

35. With a category VI criminal history, Ordaz’s resulting Guidelines range was 292 - 

365 months. His actual sentence of 298 months thus was 6 months above the lower end 

of that range. We affirmed the new sentence. See United States v. Ordaz, 227 F. App’x 

170 (3d Cir. 2007). Ordaz then unsuccessfully pursued relief from his conviction and 

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Case: 15-3547 Document: 003112279694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2016
3 

 On April 29, 2015, Ordaz filed a motion to reduce his sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(2), pursuant to Amendment 782. Specifically, Ordaz sought a 2-level reduction 

in his offense level from 35 to 33. The Federal Public Defender was appointed to 

represent Ordaz and communications with the Government then ensued. The 

Government evidently advised counsel that Ordaz was entitled to only a 1-level reduction 

in his offense level, from 35 to 34, because he was a career offender. The District Court 

eventually granted Ordaz’s motion, but only to the extent of a 1-level reduction in his 

offense level from 35 to 34. The Court imposed a new sentence of 268 months’ 

imprisonment, thus retaining the sentencing judge’s determination to assign a length of 

incarceration that was 6 months above the lower end of the Guidelines range. 

 Ordaz filed a pro se motion for reconsideration, in which he argued that the 

sentencing court never specifically found that he was a career offender, and that the 

finding in the Presentence Report was insufficient to establish career offender status 

under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The Government, pursuant to the District Court’s order, 

submitted a response to the reconsideration motion, and argued that Ordaz was wrong on 

both counts. The Government argued that, because Ordaz was a career offender, any 

reduction in his sentence was capped at an offense level of 34. The Government asserted 

and documented that the transcript of the resentencing hearing showed that there were no 

objections to the facts in the Presentence Report, and that Ordaz had lodged no objections 

to the findings in the Presentence Report, including the criminal history calculation and 

the finding that his criminal record classified him as a career offender. The Government 

Case: 15-3547 Document: 003112279694 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/02/2016
4 

argued that Ordaz’s failure to object to the facts and conclusions in the Presentence 

Report constituted an admission of those facts and conclusions. 

 In an order entered on December 11, 2015, the District Court agreed with the 

Government’s position and denied Ordaz’s motion for reconsideration. The Court 

explained that Ordaz was a career offender, citing ¶ 116 of the Presentence Report, and 

that his status as a career offender would have dictated an offense level of 34 had the 

sentencing court not applied the higher offense level of 35 from § 2D1.2. Amendment 

782 lowers offense levels by 2 as a general matter, but Ordaz’s career offender status 

would cap his sentence reduction at level 34, not level 33. The Court found support for 

capping the 2-level reduction pursuant to a defendant’s career offender status in United 

States v. Tellis, 748 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2014) (reducing defendant’s offense level from 

38 to 37 where reduction would have reduced offense level to 36 were it not capped by 

application of § 4B.1 at an offense level of 37), and noted that, under our precedent, 

Amendment 782 does not apply to the § 4B1.1 career offender designation, see United 

States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 155 (3d Cir. 2009) (career offender who received no 

downward departures and was sentenced within the career offender Guidelines range was 

not eligible for reduction in sentence even though his base offense level had been 

subsequently lowered by Amendment 706). 

 Ordaz appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our Clerk advised 

him that the appeal was subject to summary action under Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 

10.6. Ordaz has submitted a summary action response, in which he has repeated the 

arguments he made in his motion for reconsideration. Specifically, he argues that 

Case: 15-3547 Document: 003112279694 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/02/2016
5 

because he was not, in fact, sentenced under the career offender Guidelines, his offense 

level should have been set by the District Court at 33, not 34. Furthermore, he argues, 

the District Court should have taken into consideration his misconduct-free prison history 

in reducing his sentence. With respect to the latter argument, Ordaz asserts that he has 

served 202 months in prison without ever having been charged with a misconduct. 

 We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court because no substantial 

question is presented by this appeal, Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. The 

District Court’s ultimate decision to deny a § 3582(c)(2) motion is reviewed for an abuse 

of discretion, but we review de novo the District Court’s interpretation of the Guidelines. 

See Mateo, 560 F.3d at 154. A District Court generally cannot modify a term of 

imprisonment once it has been imposed. Section 3582(c)(2) provides an exception “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.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The applicable policy statement instructs that any reduction in 

sentence is not consistent with the policy statement and therefore not authorized by 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if an amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the 

defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); United States v. 

Flemming, 723 F.3d 407, 410 (3d Cir. 2013). 

 Here, it is undisputed that Amendment 782 lowered Ordaz’s applicable Guidelines 

range by at least 1 level. But there also is no genuine dispute here that the Presentence 

Report identified Ordaz as a career offender, and that, at his resentencing on August 12, 

2005, the sentencing court specifically asked his counsel whether he had any objections 

Case: 15-3547 Document: 003112279694 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/02/2016
6 

to the facts in the Presentence Report; counsel responded in the negative. A defendant 

who fails to object to facts asserted in the Presentence Report is deemed to have admitted 

those facts. See United States v. Siegel, 477 F.3d 87, 93 (3d Cir. 2007). See also United 

States v. McDowell, 888 F.2d 285, 290 n.1 (3d Cir. 1989) (“A conclusion in the 

presentence investigation report which goes unchallenged by the defendant is, of course, 

a proper basis for sentence determination.”). Ordaz’s sentence reduction is thus capped 

at level 34, for the reasons given by the District Court; the corresponding Guidelines 

range is 262-327 months, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(2).2

 

 In addition, the District Court was not authorized to take into consideration the 

factors identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Section 1B1.10(b)(2) confines the extent of the 

reduction authorized in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. Courts may not reduce a defendant’s 

term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2) to a term that is less than the minimum of the 

amended Guidelines range produced by the substitution, unless the sentencing court 

originally imposed a term of imprisonment below the Guidelines range, Dillon v. United 

States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). 

 For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the orders of the District 

Court to the extent that the Court denied Ordaz a 2-level adjustment. 

 

2

 Under § 4B1.1, an offense level of 34 applies where the statutory maximum penalty is 

less than life but exceeds 25 years. Ordaz’s statutory maximum sentence was 30 years. 

Case: 15-3547 Document: 003112279694 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/02/2016