Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-16-02805/USCOURTS-ca3-16-02805-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ejike Egwuekwe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

ALD-407 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16-2805

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

EJIKE EGWUEKWE,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 1:14-cr-00006-002)

District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

September 9, 2016

Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 16, 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: 16-2805 Document: 003112410891 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2016
2

PER CURIAM

Ejike Egwuekwe, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the District 

Court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

We will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

I.

In 2015, Egwuekwe pleaded guilty to a one-count information alleging mail fraud, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. He received a sentence of 46 months in prison, two

years of supervised release, $301,041.25 in restitution, and a $100 special assessment. 

He did not file a direct appeal. In May 2016, Egwuekwe filed a motion to reduce his 

sentence based on United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual Amendments 790, 791, 

and 792.1

 In his original motion and an amended filing, Egwuekwe argued that he was 

entitled to the benefit of those amendments, which took effect November 1, 2015. In 

support, he relied on the fact that although his sentencing hearing took place October 30, 

2015, the District Court did not enter the judgment until November 2, 2015.2 The 

District Court denied the motion, determining that the amendments did not apply 

retroactively. Egwuekewe appeals. 

 1 Amendment 790 revised the Relevant Conduct guideline, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3; 

Amendments 791 and 792 revised U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, which regards economic crimes.

2 The District Court applied the Guidelines Manual in effect at the time of the sentencing 

hearing.

Case: 16-2805 Document: 003112410891 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/16/2016
3

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We generally review a district 

court’s denial of a motion for reduction of sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 (3d Cir. 2009). When a district 

court concludes that a defendant is not eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2), however, our 

review is plenary. United States v. Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 416, 421 (3d Cir. 2012).

III.

A district court generally cannot modify a term of imprisonment once it has been 

imposed, but a defendant may be eligible for a reduction pursuant to § 3582(c) under 

certain circumstances. Section 3582(c) allows for a reduction if: (1) the sentence was 

“based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing 

Commission,” and (2) “a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued 

by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Flemming, 

723 F.3d 407, 410 (3d Cir. 2013). The relevant policy statement permits a reduction only 

on the basis of amendments that are made retroactive in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) (formerly 

§ 1B1.10(c)). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010); United States v. 

Doe, 564 F.3d 305, 313 (3d Cir. 2009).

Egwuekwe fails to meet § 3582(c)(2)’s second requirement, as the Sentencing 

Commission has not listed the Amendments 790, 791, or 792 in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) as 

amendments that apply retroactively. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). Thus, because the 

District Court correctly denied Egwuekwe’s motion on that basis, we will summarily 

affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

Case: 16-2805 Document: 003112410891 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/16/2016
4

Egwuekwe’s other arguments do not change the result. His claim that he should 

have gotten the benefit of the amendments in effect at the time his judgment was entered 

is not an argument that would entitle him to relief under § 3582(c)(2). If the amendments 

did not come into effect until after he was sentenced, they are not retroactively 

applicable, as we explained. And if the amendments were in effect when he was 

sentenced, the sentencing range cannot be considered to have “subsequently been 

lowered.” Also, his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him about the 

above amendments is not a proper basis for § 3582(c)(2) relief. We note that the District 

Court provided Egwuekwe with a form to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which is 

generally the proper manner to bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We

leave it to the District Court in the first instance to address any issues Egwuekwe may 

raise therein.

IV.

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

Egwuekwe’s motion for a reduction of sentence.

Case: 16-2805 Document: 003112410891 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/16/2016