Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03899/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03899-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Gonzalez-Rivera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

____________ 

No. 15-3899 

____________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

JOSE GONZALEZ-RIVERA, 

a/k/a Tosti, a/k/a Aberto Otero 

 Jose Gonzalez-Rivera, 

 Appellant 

 __________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Crim. No. 2-92-cr-00055-001) 

District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky 

__________________________________ 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

March 2, 2016 

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and SLOVITER1

, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: May 3, 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: 15-3899 Document: 003112281122 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2016
2 

PER CURIAM 

 Jose Gonzalez-Rivera appeals from an order of the District Court denying his 

motion to modify sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). For the reasons that 

follow, we will affirm. 

 Gonzalez-Rivera was convicted following a jury trial in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of conspiracy to distribute more than five 

kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; engaging in a continuing criminal 

enterprise (“CCE”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848; possession with intent to distribute 

more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and other 

controlled substances-related crimes. He initially was sentenced to life in prison, the only 

Guidelines range option. On his first direct appeal we remanded for reconsideration of 

the sentence. On remand, the District Court determined that Gonzalez-Rivera was 

responsible for 146 kilograms of cocaine, less than the 150 kilograms found during the 

initial sentencing hearing. This lowered the base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to 

36, lowered the offense level on the CCE count to 40, and resulted in a total offense level 

of 42. With a criminal history category of III, the new Guidelines range was 360 months 

to life in prison. The District Court sentenced Gonzalez-Rivera to a term of 

imprisonment of 432 months (36 years). He appealed the resentencing, but we affirmed, 

see United States v. Gonzalez-Rivera, 29 F. App’x 848 (3d Cir. 2002). The United States 

Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 28, 2002. 

Case: 15-3899 Document: 003112281122 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2016
3 

 Gonzalez-Rivera thereafter moved to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255, contending that his trial counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a plea 

agreement. The District Court denied the motion, refusing to grant an evidentiary 

hearing. We granted Gonzalez-Rivera a certificate of appealability but then affirmed, see 

United States v. Gonzalez-Rivera, 217 F. App’x 166 (3d Cir. 2007). After that, 

Gonzalez-Rivera tried several times, unsuccessfully, to attack his sentence in federal 

court. 

 At issue here, on May 7, 2015, Gonzalez-Rivera moved to reduce his sentence 

pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Guidelines. In that motion, he asked 

the District Court to grant not just the two-level adjustment authorized by the 

amendment, but also a further reduction consistent with the sentencing factors found in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), citing his advanced age, his health issues, and his good conduct in 

prison. The District Court, in an order entered on October 9, 2015, denied the 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, concluding that no reduction in the sentence of 432 months was 

warranted under Amendment 782 and thus that Gonzalez-Rivera’s age, health issues and 

post-sentencing conduct was not relevant. 

 Gonzalez-Rivera appeals. We find that we have jurisdiction. Because this is a 

criminal appeal, Gonzalez-Rivera had fourteen days to appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 

4(b)(1)(A)(i). His notice of appeal was untimely filed on November 24, 2015, but Rule 

4(b) is a claim-processing rule, Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Martinez, 620 F.3d 321, 328-

29 (3d Cir. 2010). In United States v. Muhammud, 701 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2012), we held 

that the Government may object to timeliness “at any point up to and including in its 

Case: 15-3899 Document: 003112281122 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2016
4 

merits brief.” Id. at 111. Since the Government incorrectly stated that the appeal was 

timely filed, see Appellee’s Brief, at 1, we conclude that any objection has been forfeited. 

See Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 19 (2005) (noting that claim-processing rules 

“assure relief to a party properly raising them” even though they “do not compel the same 

result if the party forfeits them”).2

 We will affirm. 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 United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 (3d Cir. 

2009). 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 is 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). 

 The District Court correctly denied Gonzalez-Rivera’s motion for a reduction of 

sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782. A reduction in sentence is not 

 

2 We note that Gonzalez-Rivera filed a motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s October 9, 2015 

order denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion on December 28, 2015, which the District Court has not yet ruled 

on. See Docket Entry # 240. We find that this motion did not toll the time for taking an appeal and thus 

does not deprive us of jurisdiction because it was not timely filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(3)(A)(i)-(iii) 

(motions pursuant to Criminal Rules 29, 33, and 34 must, except when based on newly discovered 

evidence, be filed within 14 days after court’s judgment is rendered).

Case: 15-3899 Document: 003112281122 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/03/2016
5 

authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for Gonzalez-Rivera because the amendment 

does not have the effect of lowering his applicable Guidelines range. Amendment 782, 

which went into effect on November 1, 2014 and which is retroactive, reduced the 

offense levels assigned to most drug quantities by two, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (Drug 

Quantity Table). As determined by the District Court, Amendment 782 lowered 

Gonzalez-Rivera’s total offense level from 42 to 40, but, with his category III criminal 

history, his Guidelines range remained 360 months to life, the very same range applied at 

his resentencing. Here, a reduction in Gonzalez-Rivera’s sentence would not be 

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). 

 Gonzalez-Rivera argues that the District Court misconstrued its authority under 

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010), to modify his sentence, and that the District 

Court should have reconsidered and changed his criminal history category. See 

Appellant’s Informal Brief, at 4. He argues that Amendment 782 has the effect of 

lowering either his “vertical” applicable Guidelines range or his “horizontal” criminal 

history category. Id. at 5. He bases his argument on ambiguity in § 3582(c)(2) and 

§ 1B1.10, and also cites our decision in Flemming, 723 F.3d 407. See Appellant’s 

Informal Brief, at 5(a). He asks that we remand his case to the District Court with an 

instruction to lower his criminal history category from III to I based on Amendment 782, 

and that we instruct the District Court to consider his age, failing health, and good 

conduct while in prison. 

Case: 15-3899 Document: 003112281122 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/03/2016
6 

 We are not persuaded that either of the cases cited by Gonzalez-Rivera or the 

alleged ambiguity he discusses supports an argument that the District Court was 

authorized to lower his criminal history score or take into consideration the factors 

identified in § 3553(a). The United States Supreme Court held in Dillon that its decision 

in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which rendered the Guidelines advisory, 

did not require treating § 1B1.10(b) as nonbinding. The Court stated that, “[c]onsistent 

with the limited nature of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, § 1B1.10(b)(2) also confines the 

extent of the reduction authorized. Courts generally may ‘not reduce the defendant’s 

term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . to a term that is less than the 

minimum of the amended guideline range’ produced by the substitution.” Dillon, 560 

U.S. at 827 (quoting § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)). In Flemming, 723 F.3d at 412, we held that the 

“applicable guideline range” under § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) for a career offender like 

Flemming was the range calculated pursuant to the career offender designation of 

§ 4B1.1, and not the range calculated after applying any departure or variance. 

 Neither of these cases compels or even suggests the result sought by GonzalezRivera here. In short, Gonzalez-Rivera is not eligible for a sentence reduction because 

Amendment 782 does not lower his Guidelines range of 360 months to life in prison, and 

thus the District Court lacked authority to consider the factors identified in § 3553(a). 

Furthermore, Amendment 782 does not concern the calculation of a defendant’s criminal 

history score. 

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

Gonzalez-Rivera’s motion to modify sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

Case: 15-3899 Document: 003112281122 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/03/2016