Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40784/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40784-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rick Rogelio Contreras
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

RICK ROGELIO CONTRERAS, also known as Eddie, also known as Pilar 

Gonzalez-Lopez, also known as Armando, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before CLEMENT and OWEN, Circuit Judges, and JORDAN, District Judge.*

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:

Rick Contreras pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. His total offense level under the 

Sentencing Guidelines was 35, yielding a guideline range of 168 to 210 months 

of imprisonment. Because he agreed to waive his right to appeal, the 

government recommended that the district court grant a one-level reduction of 

his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. The district court thus departed 

 

* District Judge of the Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40784 Document: 00513482175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2016
No. 15-40784

2

downward, reducing Contreras’s offense level to 34, yielding a range of 151 to 

188 months. The district court then sentenced him to 151 months.

After Contreras was sentenced, the Sentencing Commission amended 

the Sentencing Guidelines to reduce most drug-related base offense levels by 

two; that amendment later became retroactively applicable to inmates, like 

Contreras, who were sentenced before the amendment took effect. See United 

States v. Espinoza, 609 F. App’x 271, 271-72 (5th Cir. 2015) (unpublished); 

United States v. Acosta, 584 F. App’x 276, 277-78 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) 

(unpublished). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a defendant may move to modify 

his sentence if he was sentenced based on a sentencing range that was later 

lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 

Contreras thus moved to modify his sentence to take advantage of the 

amendment, and the district court granted Contreras’s motion. It found that, 

because of the amendment, his total offense level was now 33 (his original, predeparture offense level of 35, minus two levels), yielding a guideline range of 

135 to 168 months. The district court then reduced his sentence to 135 months. 

Contreras appealed. He argues that the district court not only should 

have reduced his total offense level to 33 but also should have re-imposed the 

downward departure under § 5K2.0, leading to an offense level of 32 and a 

guideline range of 121 to 151 months. 

We reject Contreras’s argument. The Sentencing Guidelines make clear 

that, in granting his § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court was not authorized 

to re-impose the downward departure.1

“In determining whether, and to what extent, a reduction in the 

defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy 

 

1 “We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines 

and Application Notes, applying ordinary rules of statutory construction.” United States v. 

Moore, 733 F.3d 161, 162 (5th Cir. 2013). 

 Case: 15-40784 Document: 00513482175 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2016
No. 15-40784

3

statement is warranted, the court shall determine the amended guideline 

range that would have been applicable” if the amendment was in effect at the 

time the defendant was sentenced. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1). That amended 

guideline range is the range “that corresponds to the offense level and criminal 

history category determined pursuant to 1B1.1(a), which is determined before

consideration of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any 

variance.” Id. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A) (emphasis added).2 In other words, the court 

re-calculates the guideline range without re-applying departures or variances, 

and it may then reduce the defendant’s sentence within that amended 

guideline range. 

Importantly for Contreras, a court “shall not reduce the defendant’s term 

of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a 

term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range 

determined under [§ 1B1.10(b)(1)].” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). Put differently, 

the district court is to determine the amended guideline range without 

considering departures or variances, and it cannot reduce the defendant’s 

sentence below that range. One exception to this rule exists: If the defendant 

received a below-guidelines sentence because the government moved for a 

reduction based on the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities, “a 

reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range determined 

under [§ 1B1.10(b)(1)] may be appropriate.” Id. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). That 

exception does not apply here because Contreras did not receive a reduction for 

substantial assistance.

Here, the district court determined that Contreras’s amended guideline 

range, which was yielded by an offense level of 33 (two levels below his original, 

 

2 “The Guidelines commentary is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or 

a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.” 

Moore, 733 F.3d at 162-63 (internal quotation marks omitted).

 Case: 15-40784 Document: 00513482175 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/27/2016
No. 15-40784

4

pre-departure level of 35), was 135 to 168 months. Because Contreras did not 

receive a reduction for substantial assistance, the district court could not 

reduce his sentence further by applying the § 5K2.0 departure it had 

previously applied.3 The district court thus did not err by reducing Contreras’s 

sentence to 135 months.4

AFFIRMED.

 

3 Several other circuits have also reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., United States 

v. Taylor, No. 15-5930, --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 860340, at *2-3 (6th Cir. Mar. 7, 2016); United 

States v. Hogan, 722 F.3d 55, 59-63 (1st Cir. 2013); United States v. Steele, 714 F.3d 751, 753-

57 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). 4 Contreras also contends that the district court failed to adequately consider the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in determining his reduced sentence. But the district court sentenced 

him to 135 months, the lowest sentence within the authorized range. Even if it did not 

adequately consider the § 3553(a) factors, Contreras could not have suffered any prejudice. 

And our review of the record indicates that the district court did adequately consider them: 

The district court had before it Contreras’s arguments in favor of a sentence reduction, a 

synopsis of his post-sentencing conduct, his criminal and immigration history, and other 

relevant information. The district court specifically stated that it considered the § 3553(a) 

factors in determining that the reduced sentence was appropriate. The district court did not 

abuse its discretion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673-74 (5th Cir. 2009).

 Case: 15-40784 Document: 00513482175 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/27/2016