Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02139/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02139-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oscar Luis Chacon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

OSCAR LUIS CHACON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-2139 

(D.C. No. 2:92-CR-00038-RB-2) 

(D. New Mexico) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before GORSUCH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

In 1992, Oscar Luis Chacon was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841 & 846. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) stated that Mr. Chacon’s 

offense conduct involved 1,156.1 kilograms of cocaine, which placed him in a base 

offense level of 40 under the Drug Quantity Table in the then-applicable United 

States Sentencing Guidelines. U.S.S.G § 2D1.1(c) (1988). The PSR also 

recommended a two-level enhancement for Mr. Chacon’s role in the offense, and 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

March 3, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-2139 Document: 01019580339 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 1 
2 

another two-level enhancement for his obstruction of justice. This resulted in an 

adjusted offense level of 44 and a Guideline sentencing range of life. Id. The district 

court adopted the PSR recommendations and sentenced Mr. Chacon to life in prison 

on September 30, 1992. 

On August 12, 1996, Mr. Chacon filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) for reduction of his sentence based on Amendment 505 of the 

Sentencing Guidelines. Amendment 505 modified the Drug Quantity Table under 

§ 2D1.1 and established a lower offense level than that applicable when Mr. Chacon 

was initially sentenced. See U.S.S.G § 2D1.1(c) (Drug Quantity table) (1996). 

Specifically, under Amendment 505, an offense quantity of 150 kilograms or greater 

would result in a base offense level of 38. Id. Thus, at an offense quantity of 1,156.1 

kilograms, Mr. Chacon’s base offense level would be 38, rather than the base offense 

level of 40 imposed under the Drug Quantity Table applicable at his initial 

sentencing. Id. When combined with the two-level enhancement for his role in the 

offense and the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice, this would result in 

an adjusted offense level of 42, rather than the adjusted offense level of 44 used at 

his 1992 sentencing. 

The district court agreed that Amendment 505 should be applied retroactively 

to Mr. Chacon. It therefore granted Mr. Chacon’s motion on December 24, 1996, and 

reduced his sentence from life to 360 months. 

On November 14, 2014, Mr. Chacon filed a new motion under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 to § 2D1.1, which 

Appellate Case: 15-2139 Document: 01019580339 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 2 
3 

further lowered the base levels for certain quantities in the Drug Quantity Table. 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) (Drug Quantity Table) (2014). The district court denied the 

motion because Mr. Chacon’s offense level would remain the same under the newly 

amended Guidelines. In particular, the newly revised Drug Quantity Table provided 

that 450 kilograms or more of cocaine would result in a base offense level of 38. Id. 

Because Mr. Chacon’s offense quantity of 1,156.1 kilograms of cocaine is greater 

than 450 kilograms, his base offense level would remain at 38 under Amendment 

782. And when combined with his enhancements, Mr. Chacon’s adjusted base level 

would be 42 under Amendment 782—the same adjusted offense level used by the 

district court to modify his sentence in 1996. Thus, the district court concluded that 

even if Amendment 782 were applied retroactively to Mr. Chacon, it would not affect 

his sentence. 

Mr. Chacon filed a timely appeal from the district court’s denial of his latest 

motion for a reduction in his sentence. But Mr. Chacon’s attorney has filed a brief 

with this Court under the guidance of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In 

Anders, the Supreme Court held that a defense lawyer may seek permission to 

withdraw from an appeal if, “after a conscientious examination” of the case, she finds 

the appeal to be “wholly frivolous.” Id. at 744. Any request to withdraw, however, 

must be accompanied by a “brief referring to anything in the record that might 

arguably support the appeal.” Id. And the attorney must also furnish a copy of the 

Anders brief to the client, so that he can “raise any points that he chooses.” Id. If the 

court, after a “full examination of all the proceedings,” concludes that the appeal is, 

Appellate Case: 15-2139 Document: 01019580339 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 3 
4 

in fact, wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the 

appeal. Id. 

Counsel for Mr. Chacon has complied with these procedures here. Counsel 

filed an Anders brief with this Court explaining that after “a thorough review of the 

file and records in this case,” she found the appeal to be without merit. Accordingly, 

she requested permission to withdraw but noted “she will continue to assist Mr. 

Chacon in his efforts to receive a grant of clemency.” And although Mr. Chacon has 

been afforded an opportunity to raise any points he considers non-frivolous, he has 

not done so. 

After conducting our own review of the record, we agree that Mr. Chacon has 

no meritorious grounds for appeal. For the reason explained above, Amendment 782 

to the Sentencing Guidelines does not provide any support for a further reduction in 

Mr. Chacon’s sentence. 

The motion to withdraw is granted and this appeal is dismissed. 

Entered for the Court 

Carolyn B. McHugh 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-2139 Document: 01019580339 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 4