Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca2-15-02570/USCOURTS-ca2-15-02570-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Freddy Arellano

Ferney Dario Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee USA

Document Text:

15-2570-cr 

United States v. Ferney Dario Ramirez 

 

1 

1 In the 

2 United States Court of Appeals 

3 For the Second Circuit 

4 

5 

6 August Term, 2016

7 No. 15‐2570‐cr

8 

9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

10 Appellee,

11 

12 v.

13 

14 FERNEY DARIO RAMIREZ,

15 Defendant‐Appellant,

16 

17 FREDDY ARELLANO,

Defendant.

 18 

19 

20 

21 Appeal from the United States District Court

22 for the Southern District of New York.

23 No. 1:03‐cr‐1104‐2 ― John G. Koeltl, Judge.

24 

 

 The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page1 of 32
 

2 

1 

2 ARGUED: SEPTEMBER 2, 2016

3 DECIDED: JANUARY 25, 2017

4 

5 

6 Before: RAGGI, CHIN, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

7 

8 

9 Appeal from a final order of the United States District Court

10 for the Southern District of New York (Koeltl, J.), denying Ramirez’s

11 motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

12 Ramirez argues that the district court’s denial violated the Ex Post

13 Facto Clause. We AFFIRM.  

14 

15    

16 YELENA KONANOVA (Sanford I.

17 Weisburst, on the brief), Quinn

18 Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,

19 New York, New York, for Defendant‐

20 Appellant Ferney Dario Ramirez.

21 

22 AMANDA HOULE, Assistant United

23 States Attorney (Margaret Garnett,

24 Assistant United States Attorney, on

25 the brief), for Preet Bharara, United

26 States Attorney for the Southern

27 District of New York, New York,

28 New York, for Appellee.

29 

30 

31 

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page2 of 32
 

3 

1 DRONEY, Circuit Judge:

2 In May 2004, Defendant‐Appellant Ferney Dario Ramirez

3 pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five

4 kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and

5 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court calculated Ramirez’s

6 Guidelines range as 360 months’ to life imprisonment, and

7 sentenced Ramirez to a term of 210 months’ imprisonment. In 2015,

8 Ramirez moved for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

9 § 3582(c)(2), arguing that Amendments 782 and 788 of the

10 Sentencing Guidelines lowered his applicable Guidelines range. The

11 district court acknowledged that Amendment 782 reduced

12 Ramirez’s Guidelines range to 324 to 405 months’ imprisonment but

13 denied the motion because a 2011 Amendment to U.S.S.G.

14 § 1B1.10(b) prohibited a sentence reduction where the defendant’s

15 initial sentence was below the minimum of the amended Guidelines

16 range. On appeal, Ramirez argues that application of § 1B1.10(b) to

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page3 of 32
 

4 

1 prohibit a sentence reduction violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the

2 United States Constitution. We affirm the district court’s order.

3 BACKGROUND

4 A. Initial Sentencing

5 On September 16, 2003, Ramirez was charged in a one‐count

6 indictment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five

7 kilograms or more of cocaine. On May 6, 2004, Ramirez pleaded

8 guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that stipulated to a Guidelines

9 range of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. Prior to sentencing,

10 however, Ramirez made a motion to withdraw from his plea

11 agreement in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), so

12 that he could argue for a sentence below the range stipulated in the

plea agreement. 13 1 The district court granted the motion and held a

14 Fatico hearing on March 30, 2006, to resolve factual disputes between

15 the parties regarding, inter alia, the amount of drugs involved and

 

1 Ramirez still maintained his guilty plea to the drug conspiracy.

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page4 of 32
 

5 

1 Ramirez’s acceptance of responsibility, ultimately concluding that

2 more than 150 kilograms of cocaine were involved in the offense and

3 that Ramirez was not entitled to credit for acceptance of

4 responsibility.

5 The district court proceeded to sentencing on May 25, 2006.

6 Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1), the district court calculated a base

7 offense level of 38 based on the quantity of drugs involved in the

8 offense. The district court applied a two‐level enhancement under

9 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 because Ramirez was an organizer, leader, or

10 supervisor of the criminal activity, and another two‐level

11 enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 because Ramirez attempted to

12 obstruct justice by influencing a witness. After refusing to grant

13 various downward departures sought by Ramirez, the court

14 calculated his adjusted offense level as 42. Given Ramirez’s criminal

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page5 of 32
 

6 

1 history category of II, the district court determined that the

applicable Guidelines range was 360 months’ to life imprisonment.2 2 

3 The district court noted that the situation was “highly

4 unusual” because the parties had initially stipulated to a 151‐to‐188‐

5 month Guidelines range before Ramirez withdrew from the plea

6 agreement. Joint App’x at 74–75. The court also acknowledged that,

7 despite his withdrawal from the plea agreement, Ramirez’s guilty

8 plea “did in fact save the government and the public substantial

9 resources.” Id. at 75. After considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,

10 the district court imposed a below‐Guidelines sentence of 210

11 months’ imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release.

12 Ramirez subsequently appealed his conviction and sentence,

13 arguing that the district court erred in granting his motion to

14 withdraw from the plea agreement and that his counsel was

15 ineffective for advising him to withdraw. We affirmed the district

 

2 Ramirez was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration of ten

years under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A).

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page6 of 32
 

7 

1 court’s judgment and dismissed Ramirez’s ineffective‐assistance

2 claim without prejudice. See United States v. Ramirez, 267 F. App’x 11,

3 11, 13 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order). On May 6, 2011, the district

4 court denied Ramirez’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his

5 sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Ramirez v. United States, No. 09‐

6 cv‐4397 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2011), ECF No. 9. We denied a Certificate

7 of Appealability and dismissed Ramirez’s subsequent appeal.

8 Ramirez v. United States, No. 11‐2843 (2d Cir. Feb. 22, 2012), ECF No.

9 37.  

10 B. Subsequent Changes in the Sentencing Guidelines

11 Under the 2002 Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of

12 Ramirez’s offense, as well as the 2005 Guidelines in effect when

13 Ramirez was sentenced, district courts could generally reduce

14 sentences in sentence‐modification proceedings even where the

15 initial sentence was below the low‐end of the amended Guidelines

16 range:

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page7 of 32
 

8 

1 In determining whether, and to what extent, a reduction

2 in the term of imprisonment is warranted for a

3 defendant eligible for consideration under 18 U.S.C.

4 § 3582(c)(2), the court should consider the term of

5 imprisonment that it would have imposed had the

6 amendment(s) to the guidelines listed in subsection (c)

7 been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced,

8 except that in no event may the reduced term of

9 imprisonment be less than the term of imprisonment

10 the defendant has already served.  

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b) (2002 ed.); accord id. § 1B1.10(b) (2005 ed.).3 11 In

12 addition, the Application Notes to that section confirmed that “the

13 sentencing court has the discretion to determine whether, and to

14 what extent, to reduce a term of imprisonment under this section.”

15 Id. § 1B1.10(b) cmt. n.3 (2002 ed.); id.  § 1B1.10(b) cmt. n.3 (2005 ed.).

16 In 2011, the Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment

17 759. That amendment prohibited district courts from imposing a

18 reduced sentence that is below the minimum of the amended

19 Guidelines range, unless the Government originally moved for a

 

3 A district court’s discretion to reduce a sentence is subject to statutory

mandatory minimum sentences. See United States v. Johnson, 732 F.3d 109, 114–15

(2d Cir. 2013).

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page8 of 32
 

9 

1 below‐Guidelines sentence due to the defendant’s substantial

2 assistance to the authorities under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1:

3 (A) Limitation.—Except as provided in subdivision (B),

4 the court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of

5 imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this

6 policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum

7 of the amended guideline range determined under

8 subdivision (1) of this subsection.

9 

10 (B) Exception for Substantial Assistance.—If the term of

11 imprisonment imposed was less than the term of

12 imprisonment provided by the guideline range

13 applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing

14 pursuant to a government motion to reflect the

15 defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities, a

16 reduction comparably less than the amended guideline

17 range determined under subdivision (1) of this

18 subsection may be appropriate.

19 Id. § 1B1.10(b)(2) (2011 ed.). The Amendment also added Application

20 Note 6, which stated that “the court shall use the version of this

21 policy statement that is in effect on the date on which the court

22 reduces the defendant’s term of imprisonment as provided by 18

23 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” Id. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.6 (2011 ed.).  

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page9 of 32
 

10 

1 In 2014, the Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 782

2 to the Guidelines, which reduced offense levels for certain controlled

3 substance offenses by two levels. In addition, the Sentencing

4 Commission adopted Amendment 788, which stated that

5 Amendment 782 should be applied retroactively.  

6 C. Sentence‐Reduction Proceedings

7 On April 30, 2015, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), Ramirez

8 made a pro se motion to the district court for a reduction of his

9 sentence under Amendment 782. In response, the Government

10 pointed out that Amendment 782 only lowered Ramirez’s applicable

11 Guidelines range to 324 to 405 months’ imprisonment, and that

12 Amendment 759 therefore rendered him ineligible for a sentence

13 reduction because his original sentence of 210 months was below the

14 minimum of the amended Guidelines range. Ramirez argued,

15 however, that the district court “should utilize the language

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page10 of 32
 

11 

1 provided by the Sentencing Commission at the time of his original

2 sentencing in 2006.” Joint App’x at 102.  

3 On July 23, 2015, the district court denied Ramirez’s

4 § 3582(c)(2) motion. The district court stated that Ramirez’s

5 amended Guidelines range after application of Amendment 782 was

6 324 to 405 months’ imprisonment. The court then followed U.S.S.G.

7 § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)’s prohibition, ruling that “[b]ecause the Court

8 imposed a sentence that is below the minimum Guideline of the

9 amended Guidelines Range, and because the Court’s initial variance

10 was not based on the defendant’s substantial assistance to the

11 Government, the defendant is not eligible for a reduction in

12 sentence.” Id. at 111–12.

13 DISCUSSION

14 On appeal, Ramirez argues that application of Amendment

15 759 to prohibit his sentence‐reduction request violated the Ex Post

16 Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. We review de novo

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page11 of 32
 

12 

1 questions of law regarding a district court’s decision to grant or

2 deny an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States v. Johnson, 732

F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2013).4 3   

4 Article I of the United States Constitution provides that

5 neither Congress nor any state shall pass an “ex post facto Law.”

6 U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3; id. art. I, § 10, cl. 1. The Ex Post Facto

7 Clause applies, inter alia, to government actions that “make[] more

8 burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission.”

9 Barna v. Travis, 239 F.3d 169, 171 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation

10 marks omitted); see also Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798)

11 (stating that the Ex Post Facto Clause applies to laws that “inflict[] a

12 greater punishment[] than the law annexed to the crime, when

13 committed”). A criminal or penal law is ex post facto when it is: (1)

 

4 In his pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion, Ramirez did not expressly invoke the Ex Post

Facto Clause. However, he did ask the district court to “utilize the language

provided by the Sentencing Commission at the time of his original sentencing in

2006.” Joint App’x at 102. As a result, the Government does not oppose

application of de novo review, rather than plain error review. We need not

determine whether plain error review applies, because we affirm the district

court’s ruling even under the less deferential de novo standard.

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page12 of 32
 

13 

1 retrospective, and (2) more onerous than the law in effect on the date

2 of the offense. Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 30–31 (1981).  

3 A. Retrospectivity

4 In Weaver, the Supreme Court explained that the “critical

5 question” in determining whether a law is retrospective is “whether

6 the law changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its

7 effective date.” Id. at 31. Thus, the Ex Post Facto Clause attaches

8 when a law “applies to prisoners convicted for acts committed

9 before the provision’s effective date.” Id.  

10 Here, the Government does not contest that Amendment 759

11 applies retrospectively to Ramirez. Indeed, Amendment 759’s

12 change to § 1B1.10 potentially affects the sentence ultimately served

13 for an offense committed prior to the adoption of the Amendment

14 and is therefore retrospective. See United States v. Kruger, 838 F.3d

15 786, 790 (6th Cir. 2016) (“There is no question that Amendment 759

16 applies to prisoners convicted for acts committed before the

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page13 of 32
 

14 

1 provision’s effective date” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even

2 construing this guideline change as retrospective, however,

3 Ramirez’s challenge fails under Weaver’s second prong.  

4 B. “More Onerous Than the Law in Effect on the Date of the

5 Offense”

6 

7 Ramirez argues that the 2014 version of § 1B1.10(b) was more

8 onerous than the law in effect on the date of his offense because it

9 made him ineligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to

10 Amendment 782.  

11 Analysis of this element focuses on whether the change in law

12 “presents a ‘sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment

13 attached to the covered crimes.’” Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct.

14 2072, 2082 (2013) (quoting Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 250 (2000));

15 see also Cal. Dep’t of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 508–09 (1995)

16 (stating that a law creating a mere “speculative, attenuated risk of

17 affecting a prisoner’s actual term of confinement” does not violate

18 the Ex Post Facto Clause).  

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page14 of 32
 

15 

1 a. Applicability of the Ex Post Facto Clause to

2 § 3582(c)(2) Proceedings

3 

4 The Government asserts that, by their nature, § 3582(c)(2)

5 sentence‐reduction proceedings cannot increase punishment and,

6 therefore, the reduction limit imposed by amended § 1B1.10(b) on

7 such proceedings cannot be deemed more onerous than the law on

8 the date of the offense. Indeed, several of our sister circuits have

9 adopted this position. See infra at Part B.b. Ramirez contends that

10 this conclusion is contrary to the Supreme Court’s decisions in

11 Weaver and Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433 (1997).

12 In Weaver, the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the state crime

13 of second‐degree murder. 450 U.S. at 25. On both the date of the

14 offense and the date of sentencing, there was a state statute in place

15 that provided a formula for deducting “gain‐time credits” from the

16 incarceratory terms of prisoners who committed no infractions while

17 serving their sentences and faithfully performed tasks assigned to

18 them by prison authorities. Id. at 26. After the petitioner’s

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page15 of 32
 

16 

1 sentencing, the state legislature enacted a new formula reducing the

2 gain‐time credits that prisoners could receive. Id. When the state

3 applied that formula to the petitioner, he challenged the new law as

4 ex post facto. Id. at 27.  

5 The Supreme Court concluded that the new gain‐time formula

6 was more onerous than the law in effect on the date of the

7 petitioner’s offense and therefore violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.

8 Id. at 35–36. It reasoned that “reduction in gain‐time accumulation

9 lengthen[ed] the period that someone in petitioner’s position must

10 spend in prison.” Id. at 33. Because “the new provision constrict[ed]

11 the inmate’s opportunity to earn early release,” it made more

12 onerous the punishment of crimes committed before its enactment.

13 Id. at 35–36.  

14 Similarly, in Lynce, the Supreme Court held that retroactive

15 cancellation of certain state gain‐time credits violated the Ex Post

16 Facto Clause. In 1986, the petitioner pleaded guilty to a state charge

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page16 of 32
 

17 

1 of attempted murder. 519 U.S. at 435. While imprisoned, he

2 accumulated a number of gain‐time credits under Florida state law,

3 including 1,860 days in “provisional credits.” Id. at 435–36. As a

4 result, the petitioner was released from prison in 1992. Id. at 435.

5 Shortly after his release, however, the Florida legislature enacted a

6 law that retroactively canceled provisional credits for certain

7 inmates, including the petitioner. Id. at 436. As a result, the

8 petitioner was rearrested and returned to custody to complete his

9 sentence. Id.  

10 In analyzing whether this retroactive cancellation of

11 provisional credits violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Supreme

12 Court stated that the “essential inquiry” was whether that

13 cancellation “had the effect of lengthening [the] petitioner’s period

14 of incarceration.” Id. at 442–43. The Court cited Weaver, and

15 explained that the removal of early‐release provisions “can

16 constitute an increase in punishment.” Id. at 445. Thus, even though

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page17 of 32
 

18 

1 the cancellation of the provisional credits merely made the petitioner

2 ineligible for early release, the Court held that the statute violated

3 the Ex Post Facto Clause. Id. at 447; see also Sash v. Zenk, 439 F.3d 61,

4 65 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The ex post facto doctrine applies to any penal

5 enactment that retrospectively disadvantages a criminal offender,

6 whether or not it increases a criminal sentence.”).

7 In sum, Weaver and Lynce hold that the Ex Post Facto Clause

8 prohibits certain post‐sentencing limitations on reductions of

9 sentences.  As we discuss in the next section, however, application of

10 the 2014 Guidelines to Ramirez on his § 3582(c)(2) motion does not

11 fall into the same category as the laws at issue in Weaver and Lynce

12 because it did not lengthen his prison sentence.    Accordingly,

13 Ramirez’s ex post facto challenge fails.

14 b. The “One‐Book” Rule

15 Ramirez’s argument on appeal necessarily requires the

16 application of provisions from different Guidelines manuals from

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page18 of 32
 

19 

1 different years. He claims that the law was made more onerous

2 because the version of § 1B1.10(b) contained in the 2005 Guidelines

3 Manual—which permitted district courts to reduce sentences in

4 § 3582(c)(2) proceedings below the minimum of the amended

5 range—should have been applied to a sentencing reduction

6 authorized by Amendment 782, which took effect in 2014.

7 Controlling precedent, however, precludes such reasoning.    It

8 requires us to compare the entire Guidelines Manual in effect at the

9 time of the initial sentencing—which did not include Amendment

10 782—to the entire Guidelines Manual in effect at the time of

11 Ramirez’s § 3582(c)(2) proceeding—in which Amendment 782

12 authorized a guideline reduction but Amendment 759 limited the

13 extent of such a reduction.

14 Specifically, in United States v. Keller, 58 F.3d 884 (2d Cir. 1995),

15 abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Mapp, 170 F.3d 328, 338

16 n.15 (2d Cir. 1999), this court considered Guidelines that at the time

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page19 of 32
 

20 

1 of the defendant’s sentencing (the 1993 Guidelines) prescribed a

2 higher offense level for the defendant than the Guidelines at the

3 time of his offense (the 1989 Guidelines). Id. at 893. However, the

4 1993 Guidelines also allowed the defendant’s term to be adjusted

5 downward for time already served on the instant offense—which

6 more than made up for the defendant’s increased offense level. Id.

7 Such downward adjustments were not permitted under the earlier

8 version of the Guidelines. Id.  

9 The district court applied the 1989 Guidelines at sentencing

10 and did not adjust for time served. Id. at 888. On appeal, the

11 defendant argued that the district court should have applied the

12 1993 Guidelines, to the extent they authorized downward

13 adjustment for time served, but not applied those Guidelines’

14 increase in the defendant’s offense level.

15 We vacated and remanded for resentencing under the 1993

16 Guidelines, but rejected the defendant’s selective application

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page20 of 32
 

21 

1 argument. We explained that this court “adhere[s] to the so‐called

2 ‘one‐book’ rule that most other circuits use to avoid twisting the

3 guidelines.” Id. at 890. Under that rule, “[a] sentencing court has no

4 authority to pick and choose, taking one provision from an earlier

5 version of the guidelines and another from a later version.” Id.

6 Instead, “[a] version of the sentencing guidelines is to be applied in

7 its entirety.” Id.   Keller applied the “one‐book” rule to ex post facto

8 analysis, holding that “the one‐book rule must . . . be employed to

9 determine in the first instance whether an ex post facto problem

10 exists.” Id. Thus, “[w]hat is significant is a comparison of the version

11 of the guidelines in effect at sentencing against the version in effect

at the time the offense was committed.”5 12 Id. at 891. We concluded

 

5 Keller’s holding is consistent with the language of the Sentencing Guidelines,

which emphasizes that Guidelines Manuals should be applied in their entirety in

ex post facto analyses. Specifically, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1) states that “[i]f the court

determines that use of the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the

defendant is sentenced would violate the ex post facto clause of the United States

Constitution, the court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that

the offense of conviction was committed.” The Guidelines further clarify that

“[t]he Guidelines Manual in effect on a particular date shall be applied in its

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page21 of 32
 

22 

1 that, because the 1993 Guidelines, as a whole, produced a shorter

2 sentence for the defendant than the 1989 Guidelines, there would

3 have been no ex post facto violation in applying the 1993 Guidelines

4 in their entirety. Id. at 893.  

5 In Berrios v. United States, 126 F.3d 430 (2d Cir. 1997), we

6 applied Keller to the sentence‐reduction context. There, the

7 defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine with

8 intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Id. at 431. After

9 the defendant was sentenced, several intervening amendments were

10 made to the Sentencing Guidelines, including an amendment that

 

entirety.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(2). “The court shall not apply, for example, one

guideline section from one edition of the Guidelines Manual and another

guideline section from a different edition of the Guidelines Manual.” Id. Section

1B1.11(b)(2) does add that “the court shall consider subsequent amendments, to

the extent that such amendments are clarifying rather than substantive changes.”

However, Ramirez does not contend that Amendment 782—which substantively

changed the Guidelines calculation for certain offenses—was merely a clarifying

change. See United States v. Brooks, 732 F.3d 148, 150 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)

(“By reducing the base offense levels for certain crack cocaine offenses,

Amendments 748 and 750 [earlier versions of Amendments 782 and 788 with

similar effect] plainly effected a substantive change in the law rather than merely

clarified the Commission’s prior intent.”).

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page22 of 32
 

23 

1 lowered the base offense level for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Id. at

2 432. Section 1B1.10(b) was also amended to provide that, when

3 determining whether and to what extent a sentence reduction is

4 warranted, a court should only consider those amendments

5 specifically deemed retroactive in § 1B1.10, rather than all

6 subsequent amendments. Id. While the amendment reducing base

7 offense levels for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 846 had been deemed

8 retroactive, the change to § 1B1.10(b) prevented the defendant from

9 taking advantage of several other intervening amendments to the

10 Sentencing Guidelines. Id. at 432–33. The district court ultimately

11 granted the defendant’s § 3582(c)(2) motion based on the base

12 offense level amendment regarding 21 U.S.C. § 846 crimes, and

13 reduced his sentence from 210 months’ to 168 months’

14 imprisonment. Id. at 433. On appeal, the defendant asserted that the

15 § 1B1.10(b) amendment rendering him ineligible for other reductions

16 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. Id. at 432–33.  

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page23 of 32
 

24 

1 We rejected the defendant’s challenge. Citing Keller, we stated

2 that “[t]he relevant inquiry for ex post facto analysis is not whether a

3 particular amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines is detrimental to

4 a defendant, but whether application of the later version of the

5 Sentencing Guidelines, considered as a whole, results in a more

6 onerous penalty.” Id. at 433. We ruled that “[a]nalogous principles

7 apply to a situation where, as here, an already‐sentenced defendant

8 seeks to take advantage of later amendments to the Sentencing

9 Guidelines.” Id. We then held that there was no ex post facto violation

10 because, even if the amendment to § 1B1.10(b) disadvantaged the

11 defendant by limiting the district court’s consideration to only one

12 of the intervening amendments, the net effect of the amendments

favored him.6 13 Id.  

 

6 Both parties note that Berrios was decided under the “substantial disadvantage”

test that the Supreme Court has since rejected. See Peugh, 133 S. Ct. at 2083 n.4

(acknowledging that the “substantial disadvantage” test has been abandoned

and stating that the “relevant question is whether the change in law creates a

sufficient or significant risk of increasing the punishment for a given crime”

(internal quotation marks omitted)). However, Berrios’s use of the “substantial

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page24 of 32
 

25 

1 Applying the “one‐book” rule here, we conclude that there

2 was no ex post facto violation. At both the date Ramirez’s crime was

3 committed and the date of his initial sentencing, § 1B1.10(b) did not

4 restrict district courts from imposing a sentence below the amended

5 Guidelines range at a sentence‐reduction hearing. However, neither

6 of these Guidelines Manuals included Amendment 782, which is the

7 basis for Ramirez’s eligibility for a sentence reduction. At the time of

8 the sentence‐reduction hearing, the Guidelines Manual included

9 Amendment 782, but also the version of § 1B1.10(b)—based on

10 Amendment 759—that prohibited district courts from reducing a

11 sentence below a defendant’s amended guidelines range. Thus,

12 under none of the relevant Guidelines Manuals did Amendment 782

13 and the prior version of § 1B1.10(b) both exist. Indeed, the two

14 provisions never coexisted in any Guidelines Manual.  

 

disadvantage” test does not call into question its application of Keller and the

“one‐book” rule to the sentence‐reduction context.

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page25 of 32
 

26 

1 Because Amendment 782 was not a part of the Guidelines at

2 the time of Ramirez’s offense or sentencing and, without

3 Amendment 782, Ramirez would not be entitled to a sentencing

4 reduction even under the 2002 and 2005 versions of § 1B1.10, it

5 cannot be said that application of the 2014 Guidelines, including the

6 constraint on § 1B1.10 provided for by Amendment 759, “result[ed]

in a more onerous penalty.”  Id.7 7 

8 Therefore, we reject Ramirez’s argument that the district

9 court’s failure to apply the prior version of § 1B1.10(b) in

10 conjunction with Amendment 782 constituted an ex post facto

11 violation. To hold otherwise would allow Ramirez to “pick and

 

7 Our conclusion accords with the principle of fair notice that undergirds ex post

facto jurisprudence.  See Weaver, 450 U.S. at 30 (“Critical to relief under the Ex Post

Facto Clause is not an individual’s right to less punishment, but the lack of fair

notice and governmental restraint when the legislature increases punishment

beyond what was prescribed when the crime was consummated.”); see also

Peugh, 133 S. Ct. at 2094.  Where a Guidelines amendment affording a sentencing

reduction did not exist at the time a defendant committed or was sentenced for

the crime of conviction, a defendant could have no expectation of such a benefit,

so as to require notice at that time of any eligibility limitations.

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page26 of 32
 

27 

1 choose” provisions from different Guidelines Manuals, in violation

2 of the “one‐book” rule. Keller, 58 F.3d at 890.

3 Ramirez maintains that he is not “pick[ing] and choos[ing] the

4 best pieces from different versions of the guidelines” because

5 Amendment 782 was made retroactively applicable. Appellant’s

6 Reply Br. at 13. The implication is that Amendment 782 should be

7 considered part of the earlier Guidelines Manuals for the purposes

8 of the “one‐book” rule. It is true that, under § 1B1.10(b)(1), a court

9 determines the defendant’s amended Guidelines range by applying

10 Amendments listed in § 1B1.10(d) to the Guidelines in effect at the

11 time of initial sentencing. However, Ramirez cites no authority

12 indicating that this determination renders Amendment 782 part of

13 prior Guidelines Manuals, particularly for the purpose of ex post facto

14 analysis, and we decline to so rule here. Notably, in Berrios, we

15 confronted a situation in which the defendant sought application at

16 sentence‐modification proceedings of an earlier version of §

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page27 of 32
 

28 

1 1B1.10(b) as well as a retroactive Amendment reducing his offense

2 level. See 126 F.3d at 432–33. We applied Keller and ruled that there

3 was no ex post facto violation, without finding it significant that one

4 of the provisions the defendant sought to apply was retroactive. Id.

5 at 433.  

6 Keller’s application of the “one‐book” rule to an ex post facto

7 challenge still dictates that we compare the version of the Guidelines

8 in effect at a sentencing reduction proceeding against the version in

effect at the time of the defendant’s original offense and sentence.8 9 

10 See id. (citing Keller’s articulation and stating that “[a]nalogous

11 principles apply to a situation where . . . an already‐sentenced

12 defendant seeks to take advantage of later amendments to the

13 Sentencing Guidelines”). Here, then, we must compare the 2014

14 Guidelines Manual as a whole to the 2002 and 2005 Guidelines

 

8 In light of the fact that § 1B1.10 did not change between the time of Ramirez’s

commission of the offense and sentencing, we need not decide which moment

serves as the relevant point of comparison.

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page28 of 32
 

29 

1 Manuals each as a whole. Under the 2014 Guidelines Manual,

2 Ramirez is entitled to have Amendment 782 applied to his prior

3 Guidelines determination, but subject to the limitation in §

4 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) which ultimately made him ineligible for a

5 reduction. Under the Guidelines Manuals in effect at the time of the

6 offense and initial sentence, Ramirez was not entitled to application

7 of Amendment 782. Thus, Ramirez is not eligible for a sentence

8 reduction under any Guidelines Manual considered as a whole. In

9 these circumstances, we conclude that the 2014 Guidelines are not

10 more onerous on Ramirez than the 2002 or 2005 Guidelines and,

11 thus, there is no ex post facto violation.

12 Our holding that there is no ex post facto violation in applying

13 Amendment 759 to limit sentence reductions authorized by a later

14 Amendment—such as Amendment 782—is consistent with the

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page29 of 32
 

30 

rulings of every other circuit to have addressed this question. 1 9 See

2 Kruger, 838 F.3d at 790–92 [6th Cir.]; United States v. Thompson, 825

3 F.3d 198, 204–06 (3d Cir. 2016); United States v. Kurtz, 819 F.3d 1230,

4 1236–37 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. Bayatyan, 633 F. App’x 912,

5 915–16 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished opinion); United States v.

6 Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680–81 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam); United

7 States v. Diggs, 768 F.3d 643, 645–46 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v.

8 Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1258–59 (11th Cir. 2013); see also United States v.

9 Kay, 655 F. App’x 165 (4th Cir. July 22, 2016) (mem.), aff’g No. 09‐cr‐

10 252 (TEJ), 2016 WL 661591, at *2–3 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 18, 2016). While

11 these other circuits have not explicitly invoked the “one‐book” rule

12 in this context, Kruger, Bayatyan, and Colon employed reasoning that

 

9 Ramirez relies on two district court cases, which come to a contrary conclusion.

See Alli‐Balogun v. United States, 114 F. Supp. 3d 4, 49–50 (E.D.N.Y. 2015); United

States v. King, No. 99‐cr‐952‐1, 2013 WL 4008629, at *21 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2013).

However, Alli‐Balogun addressed a different provision—U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(e)—

and involved a defendant who had served more than the maximum sentence of

the amended Guidelines range, such that § 1B1.10(e) operated to increase his

punishment.  Meanwhile, King has been abrogated by United States v. Diggs, 768

F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2014).  

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page30 of 32
 

31 

1 implicitly applied it. In both Kruger and Bayatyan, the courts

2 partially based their conclusions on the fact that Amendment 782

3 did not exist in the Guidelines at the time of initial sentencing. See

4 Kruger, 838 F.3d at 791 (“[T]he . . . version of § 1B1.10 [at the time of

5 initial sentencing] didn’t list Amendment 782 (which wouldn’t come

6 into existence for several more years) as a covered amendment, and

7 so it could not have afforded [the defendant] any relief on the basis

8 of it.”); Bayatyan, 633 F. App’x at 915 (finding no ex post facto

9 violation because “at no point was Amendment 782 covered under

10 the 2010 version of § 1B1.10,” which defendant claimed applied at

11 his initial sentencing). In making this point, Kruger and Bayatyan

12 both looked to Guidelines Manuals as a whole—as prescribed by the

13 “one‐book” rule—rather than permitting the application of

14 provisions across different Guidelines Manuals. Similarly, in Colon—

15 which concerned application of Amendment 759 to limit sentencing

16 reduction pursuant to Amendment 750—the court concluded that

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page31 of 32
 

32 

1 there was no ex post facto violation because “[t]he net effect of

2 Amendments 750 and 759 was not to increase [defendant’s] range of

3 punishment above what it was at the time she committed her

4 crimes.” 707 F.3d at 1258–59. By comparing the Guidelines range at

5 the time defendant committed her crimes to the Guidelines range at

6 the time of the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, the court implicitly engaged

7 in the same analysis called for by the “one‐book” rule.  

8 CONCLUSION

9 We hold that Amendment 759’s application prohibiting

10 Ramirez from taking advantage of Amendment 782 does not violate

11 the Ex Post Facto Clause. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s

12 order denying Ramirez’s motion for sentence reduction under 18

13 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Case 15-2570, Document 57-1, 01/25/2017, 1954256, Page32 of 32