BLD-025 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-3885

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JORGE RENTAS

a/k/a George Alecia

a/k/a Jorge Rintis

JORGE RENTAS,

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 2-09-cr-00647-001)

District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kelly

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

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

October 31, 2013

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 18, 2013 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Jorge Rentas, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the District 

Court’s order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in 
2

sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the 

District Court’s interpretation of § 3582(c)(2) and the United States Sentencing 

Guidelines, and review the Court’s ultimate decision whether to grant or deny a motion 

under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 

(3d Cir. 2009). Because Rentas’s appeal presents no substantial question, we will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. 

In June 2010, Rentas pleaded guilty to two counts of distribution of crack cocaine

and one count of distribution of cocaine, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). In the 

plea agreement, the parties agreed that Rentas should be sentenced to 120 months’ 

imprisonment. After Rentas’s plea, but before his sentencing, Congress enacted the Fair 

Sentencing Act of 2010, which “chang[ed] the threshold quantities of crack cocaine that 

trigger mandatory minimum sentences.” United States v. Berberena, 694 F.3d 514, 517 

(3d Cir. 2012). Subsequently, the Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 

750, which “reduced the crack-related offense levels in § 2D1.1 of the Guidelines,” and 

Amendment 759, which made Amendment 750 retroactive. Id. at 517-18; see also U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual app. C, amends. 750, 759. Both amendments became 

effective on November 1, 2011. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amends. 750, 759.

On March 30, 2012, Rentas was sentenced. The District Court (and the parties) 

considered the changes wrought by the Fair Sentencing Act, Amendment 750, and 

Amendment 759. Under the amended sentencing regime, Rentas was subject to a 

Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. Nevertheless, the District Court 
3

imposed the agreed-upon sentence of 120 months. Rentas appealed to this Court, and we 

summarily affirmed. See C.A. No. 12-1927.

Rentas then filed the motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) that is at issue here, 

claiming that his sentence should be reduced in light of Amendments 750 and 759. The 

District Court concluded that, because it had already taken the amendments into account 

during sentencing, Rentas was entitled to no relief. Rentas then filed a timely notice of 

appeal.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce an imposed sentence 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.” 

§ 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added); see also Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690-91 

(2010). Rentas seeks relief pursuant to Amendments 750 and 759 to the Sentencing 

Guidelines. As noted above, however, these amendments became effective on November 

1, 2011. See United States v. Ware, 694 F.3d 527, 530 (3d Cir. 2012). Meanwhile, 

Rentas was sentenced nearly four months later, on March 30, 2012. Thus, because both 

amendments were already in effect when Rentas was sentenced, they provide no basis for 

relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). See generally United States v. Flemming, 617 F.3d 

252, 257 (3d Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir.

2000) (per curiam).
4

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.1

 

1 We also reject Rentas’s contention that our summary-action procedure violates his right 

to due process. See United States v. Pajooh, 143 F.3d 203, 204 (5th Cir. 1998).