### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 09-40546

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JASON HERNANDEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division

Before GARWOOD, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jason Hernandez appeals a district c ourt’s denial of his motion for

modification of his life sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ), relying on a

recent amendment to the sentencing guidelines for crimes relat e d to the

possession and distribution of crack cocaine. Bec a u s e the district court that

sentenced Hernandez found that Hernandez was responsible for 32.5 kg of crack

cocaine, an amount far in excess of the quantity that triggers the highest offense

level under the current sentencing guidelines, we AFFIRM.

I.

In 1 9 9 8

, d e fe n d a nt-a p p e lla n t J a so n H e rn a n d e z w a s co n v icte d a fte r a ju ry U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D

June 28 , 20 11

Lyle W . Cayce
Clerk Case: 09-40546 Document: 00511523284 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2011No. 09-40546

tria l o f o n e co u n t o f co n sp ira cy to p o sse ss w ith a n in te n t to d istrib u te co n tro lle d

su bs t anc es and c ons pi r ac y t o di s t r i but e c on tro lle d su b sta n ce s, in clu d in g co ca in e

b a se (cra ck co ca in e ) in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C

. § 8 4 5 ; a n d tw o co u n ts o f p o sse ssio n

w ith in te n t to d istrib u te co ca in e b a se , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C

. § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ). T h e

se a le d p re -se n te n ce re p o rt (P S R ) sta te s th a t “it w a s p a rt o f th e co n sp ira cy th a t

m e m b e r s w o u ld o b ta in co ca in e b a se , p o w d e r co ca in e , m a riju a n a a n d

m e th a m p h e ta m in e a n d a rra n g e fo r tra n sp o rta tio n o f th e se d ru g s to M cK in n e y ,

T e x a s

. . . [o ]n e o r m o re m e m b e rs o f th e co n sp ira cy w o u ld co n v e rt co ca in e

h y d ro ch lo rid e i n to co ca in e b a se .” T h e P S R se t fo rth n u m e ro u s o cca sio n s o n

w h i ch H e rn a n d e z k n e w th a t m e m b e rs o f h is crim in a l co n sp ira cy tra n sp o rte d

p o w d e r c o c a in e a n d la te r co o k e d th a t p o w d e r in to co ca in e b a se

. T h e P S R

th e re fo re c o n clu d e d th a t “[b ]a se d o n th e m o st co n se rv a tiv e e stim a te

, J a so n

H e rn a n d e z is re sp o n sib le fo r 3 2 .5 k g o f co ca in e b a se .”

O v e r H e rn a n d e z’s o b je ctio n s, th e d istrict co u rt a d o p te d th e P S R in its

S ta te m e n t o f R e a so n s a n d d u rin g H e rn a n d e z’s se n te n cin g h e a rin g , n o tin g w ith

re sp e ct t o t h e co n sp ira cy ch a rg e th a t “th e re is su fficie n t cre d ib le e v id e n ce to

su p p o rt th e ca lcu la tio n s o f d ru g q u a n tity a s m a d e b y th e p ro b a tio n o ffice r.” “In

a n y e v e n t,” th e co u rt w e n t o n to o b se rv e , “I th in k th e re is cle a rly e v id e n ce to

—

th a t th e q u a n tity o f d ru g s fa r e x ce e d s th e 1 .5 k ilo g ra m s n e e d e d to y ie ld a to ta l

o ffe n se le v e l o f 3 9 .” T h a t la tte r fin d in g w a s sig n ifica n t b e ca u se u n d e r th e th e n

p re v a il i n g s e n te n cin g g u id e lin e s, th e h ig h e st o ffe n se le v e l w a s im p o se d fo r

cra ck co ca in e q u a n titie s in e x ce ss o f 1 .5 k g

. O n O cto b e r 2

, 1 9 9 8

, H e rn a n d e z w a s

se n te n ce d to life im p riso n m e n t fo r th e co n sp ira cy co u n t. H e rn a n d e z la te r

a p p e a le d h is co n v ictio n a n d se n te n ce

. A lth o u g h h e d isp u te d th e su fficie n cy o f

th e e v id e n ce a g a in st h im

, h e d id n o t d i s p u t e t h e co u rt’s fin d in g s w ith re sp e ct

to th e q u a n tity o f co ca in e fo r w h ich th e co n sp ira cy w a s re sp o n sib le

. T h is co u rt

a ffirm e d h is co n v ictio n o n a ll g ro u n d s. U n ite d S t a t es v

. H

ern a n d ez , 2 6 0 F .3 d

2 Case: 09-40546 Document: 00511523284 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2011No. 09-40546

6 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 W L 6 5 0 2 2 7 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (u n p u b lish e d ).

E ffe ctiv e N o v e m b e r 1

, 2 0 0 7

, th e U n ite d S ta te s S e n t e n cin g C o m m issio n

a d o p te d A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6

, w h ich re tro a ctiv e l y m o d i fie d th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e s

a p p lica b le to cra ck co ca in e o ffe n se s to re d u ce th e d isp a rity b e tw e e n c r a ck

co ca in e a n d p o w d e r co ca in e o ffe n se s. U .S .S .G

. S u p p

. to A p p ’x C

, A m e n d

. 7 0 6

(N o v

. 1

, 2 0 0 9 ). W h ile th e m a x im u m o ffe n se le v e l a p p lie d to a fin d in g o f 1 .5 k g

o f cra ck w h e n H e rn a n d e z w a s se n te n ce d

, it n o w a p p lie s to a fin d in g o f 4 .5 k g o f

cra ck

. T h e a m e n d m e n t h a s n o a p p lica b ility to a d e fe n d a n t se n te n ce d fo r m o re

th a n 4 .5 k g o f cra ck

. S ee U n ited S ta tes v

. D u n ca n , 6 3 9 F .3 d 7 6 4 , 7 6 7 (7 th C ir.

2 0 1 1 ) (re co g n izin g th a t A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 a ffe cts o n ly d e fe n d a n ts w h o a re

re sp o n sib le fo r d istrib u tin g le ss th a n 4 .5 k g o f cra ck ).

In 2 0 0 8

, H e rn a n d e z file d a m o tio n p u rsu a n t to § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ) fo r re d u ctio n

o f h is se n t e n c e c o n siste n t w ith th e re v ise d g u id e lin e s. A fte r re q u e stin g a

re sp o n se fro m th e U n ite d S ta te s, th e d istrict co u rt re je cte d H e rn a n d e z ’s

a rg u m e n t. H e rn a n d e z th e n m o v e d in th e d istrict co u rt fo r re co n sid e ra tio n a n d

,

n e a rly sim u lta n e o u sly

, a p p e a le d to th is co u rt. T h e d istrict co u rt a g a in re je cte d

h is cla im s, h o ld in g th a t th e a m e n d m e n ts to th e s e n t e n c i n g g u id e lin e s h a d n o

e ffe ct o n H e rn a n d e z’s se n te n c i ng of f ens e l eve l a n d th u s o n h is se n te n ce , b e ca u se

th e a m o u n t o f cra ck co ca in e fo r w h ich h e w a s re sp o n sib le w a s fa r b e y o n d th e 4 .5

k g th re sh o ld u n d e r th e a m e n d e d g u id e lin e s. H e rn a n d e z n o w a p p e a ls th e 1

d istrict co u rt’s d e cisio n o n re co n sid e ra tio n

.

II.

A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt re ce n tly h a s h e ld

, th e sco p e o f a p ro ce e d in g u n d e r

1 8 U .S .C

. § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ) in ca se s lik e th is o n e is e x tre m e ly lim ite d

. D illo n v

. U n ited

The dis tri ct cour t als o rejec ted He rnand ez’s clai ms on juris dic tio nal ground s, beca use 1

He rnand ez mo ved for rec ons ide rat ion aft er tak ing an app eal to this cour t, and thus pot enti ally dep rived the dis tri ct cour t of its juris dic tio n. Becaus e the me rit s are pr ope rly bef ore us on the
def enda nt’ s tim ely app eal, we need not reac h the iss ue of wh ethe r the dis tri ct c o urt wa s

cor rec t in this d ete rm inati on.

3 Case: 09-40546 Document: 00511523284 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/28/2011No. 09-40546

S ta tes , 1 3 0 S . C t. 2 6 8 3 , 2 6 8 7 (2 0 1 0 ). It is b la ck -le tte r la w th a t a fe d e ra l co u rt

g e n e ra lly “m a y n o t m o d ify a te rm o f im p riso n m e n t o n ce it h a s b e e n im p o se d .”

Id

. H o w e v e r, C o n g re ss h a s a llo w e d a n e x ce p tio n to th a t ru le “in th e ca se o f a

d e fe n d a n t w h o h a s b e e n se n te n ce d to a te rm o f im p riso n m e n t b a se d o n a

se n te n cin g ra n g e th a t h a s su b se q u e n tly b e e n lo w e r e d b y th e S e n te n cin g

C o m m issio n .” 1 8 U .S .C

. § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ); see a lso F reem a n v

. U

n ited S ta tes

, N o

. 0 9

-

1 0 2 4 5 , 2 0 1 1 W L 2 4 7 2 7 9 7 (U .S

. J u n e 2 3

, 2 0 1 1 ) (re citin g sta n d a rd fo r se n te n ce

m o d ifica tio n s). S u c h d e fe n d a n ts a re e n title d to m o v e fo r re tro a ctiv e

m o d ifica tio n o f th e ir se n te n ce s. D illo n , 1 3 0 S

. C t. a t 2 6 9 0

– 9 1

. In d e te rm in in g

w h e th e r to m o d ify th e d e fe n d a n t’s se n te n ce , th e d istrict co u rt is first re q u ire d

to fin d th e a m e n d e d g u id e lin e ra n g e th a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n a p p lica b le to th e

d e fe n d a n t if th e re le v a n t a m e n d m e n t h a d b e e n in e ffe ct a t th e tim e o f th e in itia l

se n te n cin g

. U .S .S .G

. § 1 B 1 .1 0 (a )(1 ). “In m a k in g su ch d e te rm in a tio n , th e co u rt

sh a ll su b stitu te o n ly th e a m e n d m e n ts liste d in su b se ctio n (c) fo r th e

co rre sp o n d in g g u id e lin e s p ro v isio n s th a t w e re a p p lie d w h e n th e d e fe n d a n t w a s

se n te n ce d

, a n d sh a ll le a v e a ll o th e r g u id e lin e a p p lica tio n d e cisio n s u n a ffe cte d .”

U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 (b )(1 ).

A fte r th e d istrict co u rt d e te rm in e s w h a t th e m o d ifie d se n te n ce w o u ld b e ,
th e d istrict co u rt is re q u ire d to co n sid e r a n y a p p lica b le fa cto rs u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C

. § 3 5 5 3 in d e cid in g w h e th e r a se n te n ce m o d ifica tio n is “w a rra n te d in w h o le o r in

p a rt u n d e r th e p a rticu la r circu m sta n ce s o f th e ca se .” D illo n , 1 3 0 S .C t. a t 2 6 9 2

.
“B e ca u se re fe re n ce to § 3 5 5 3 is a p p ro p ria te o n ly a t th e se co n d ste p o f th is

circu m scrib e d in q u iry

, it ca n n o t se r v e to tra n sfo rm th e p ro ce e d in g s u n d e r

§ 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ) in to p le n a ry re se n te n cin g p ro ce e d in g s.” Id

. T h u s, e v e n if th e

d e fe n d a n t q u a lifie s fo r se n te n ce m o d ifica tio n u n d e r th e first ste p o f t h e

a n a ly sis, th e d e cisio n w h e th e r to u ltim a te ly g ra n t a m o d ifica tio n is le ft to th e

so u n d d iscre tio n o f th e tria l co u rt. D illo n , 1 3 0 S

. C t

. a t 2 6 9 2

. T h e d istrict

4 Case: 09-40546 Document: 00511523284 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/28/2011No. 09-40546

co u rt’s d e cisio n w h e th e r to re d u ce a se n te n ce p u rsu a n t to § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ) is

re v ie w e d fo r a b u se o f d iscre tio n

. U n ited S ta tes v

. E v a n s, 5 8 7 F .3 d 6 6 7

, 6 7 2 (5 th

C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) cert. d en ied

, 1 3 0 S . C t. 3 4 2 6 (2 0 1 0 ).

A p p ly in g th o se p rin ci p le s to th is a p p e a l, w e h o ld th a t th e d istrict co u rt

d id n o t a b u se its d iscre tio n in re fu s i n g t o m o d ify H e rn a n d e z’s se n te n ce o r in

re fu sin g to g ra n t a n e v id e n tia ry h e a rin g to d e cid e th e a m o u n t o f cra ck fo r w h ich

H e rn a n d e z w a s re sp o n sib le

. O n th e r e c o r d b e fo re u s th e se n te n cin g d istrict

ju d g e a d o p te d th e 3 2 .5 k ilo g ra m q u a n tity fo u n d b y th e P S R

, fa r b e y o n d th e 4 .5

k g th re sh o ld n e e d e d fo r th e h ig h e st o ffe n se le v e l. H e rn a n d e z d id n o t ch a lle n g e

th a t fin d in g o n a p p e a l, a s d id o n e o f h is co -co n sp ira to rs, J a m e s D w a y n e O rte g a

.

T h u s, H e rn a n d e z’s e ffo rts to re litig a te w h e th e r th e p e n a lty w a s p ro p e rly

a p p lie d a re n o t co g n iza b le a t th is sta g e , a n d h is se n te n ce c a n n o t b e m o d ifie d

.
S ee U n ited S ta t es v

. S h a w , 3 0 F .3 d 2 6

, 2 9 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (o b se rv in g th a t a

§ 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ) p ro ce e d in g is n o t th e a p p ro p ria te v e h icle fo r re litig a tin g a

se n te n cin g issu e ); see a lso U n ited S ta tes v

. W

h iteb ird

, 5 5 F .3 d 1 0 0 7

, 1 0 1 1 (5 th

C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (“[A ] § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ) m o tio n is n o t a se co n d o p p o rtu n ity to p re se n t

m itig a tin g fa c t o r s t o th e se n te n cin g ju d g e , n o r is it a ch a lle n g e to th e

a p p ro p ria te n e ss o f th e o rig in a l se n te n ce .”). A m o d ifica tio n p ro ce e d in g is n o t the

fo ru m fo r a co lla te ra l a tta ck o n a se n te n ce lo n g sin ce im p o se d a n d a ffirm e d o n

d ire ct a p p e a l. D illo n , 1 3 0 S . C t. a t 2 6 9 2

. 2

E v e n a ssu m in g a rg u en d o th a t H e rn a n d e z co u ld ch a lle n g e th e d r u g

q u a n tity fo u n d b y th e se n te n cin g ju d g e in th is p ro ce e d in g , a fte r a ca re fu l re v ie w

o f th e re co rd w e co n clu d e th a t th e d istrict co u rt in th e m o d ifica tio n p ro ce e d in g

Nor

, as He rnand ez him se lf adm its

, doe s §3582( c) (2) per mi t the dis tri ct cour t to have 2

cons ide red a red uct ion of his se nten ce to a ter m below the ame nded advis ory guide line range in light of Uni ted States v. Booke r , 543 U. S. 220 (200 5). That inquir y is als o enti rely for eclo se d

unde r Di ll on

. Id. at 2687- 89; see al so United States v. Do ubli n , 572 F.3d 235 (5t h Cir. 2009)

.

5 Case: 09-40546 Document: 00511523284 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/28/2011No. 09-40546

d id n o t a b u se its d iscre tio n in fin d in g th a t H e rn a n d e z w a s re sp o n sib le fo r m o re

th a n 4 .5 k ilo g ra m s o f cra ck

, th e trig g e r fo r t h e m a x im u m p e n a lty u n d e r th e

S e n te n cin g G u id e lin e s. S ee U n ited S ta tes v

. W

o o d s , 5 8 1 F .3 d 5 3 1

, 5 3 9 (7 th C ir.

2 0 0 9 ) (“H a d th e o rig in a l se n te n cin g co u rt fo u n d th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts w e re

re sp o n sib le fo r e x a ctly 1 .5 k ilo g ra m s, w e w o u ld h a v e a d iffe re n t c a s e , b u t a

fin d in g th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts w e re re sp o n sib le fo r a t l e a st 4 .5 k ilo g ra m s is n o t

in co n siste n t w ith th e co n clu sio n o f th e o rig in a l se n te n cin g co u rt t h a t th e

d e fe n d a n ts w e re re sp o n sib le fo r a m o u n ts in e x ce ss o f 1 .5 k ilo g ra m s”); see a lso

U n ited S ta tes v

. M

o o re , 5 8 2 F .3 d 6 4 1

, 6 4 6 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (“W e d o n o t a g re e w ith

[ t he def e n d a n t] th a t th e d istrict co u rt’s p re v io u s d e te rm in a tio n of ‘ mor e t han 1. 5

k ilo g ra m s’ m e a n s th a t it ca n n o t a lso fin d m o re th a n 4

. 5 k i lo g ra m s”). 3

H e rn a n d e z a rg u e s th a t a m b ig u ity w a s ra ise d a b o u t th e a m o u n t o f cra ck b y th e

P S R a n d th e d istrict ju d g e ’s co m m e n ts a t th e se n te n cin g h e a rin g , a n d n o te s th e

g o v e rn m e n t’s co n ce ssio n in a co -co n sp ira to r’s a p p e a l th a t th e a m o u n t o f cra ck

in v o lv e d w a s le ss th a n 3 2 .5 k g

. H o w e v e r, e v e n a ssu m in g th e re w a s so m e

a m b ig u ity a b o u t th e a m o u n t o f cra ck in v o lv e d

, H e rn a n d e z d o e s n o t a n d ca n n o t 4

d isp u te th a t o n e m e m b e r o f h is co n sp ira cy te stifie d th a t h e p e rso n a lly d e liv e re d

He rnand ez als o argues that we sho uld rever se and rem and for a lim ite d re- se nten cing 3

beca use of the allege d inco nsi st enci es note d above, relyi ng on this cour t’s opi nion in Uni ted
States v. Tow e , 26 F

. 3 d 6 1 4, 617 (5t h Cir. 1994)

. That cas e is inap pos ite

. In Tow e , the
def enda nt’ s se nten ce wa s bas ed on res pons ibili t y for a tot al we ight of 28.2 6 poun ds of phen ylacet one. The rec ord ther e sh ow ed that the 28.2 6 poun ds cont ained so me wa st e pr oduc ts
wh ich, pur sua nt to the se nten cing guide line ame ndm ents at iss ue, coul d no longer be count ed
for the purp os es of sen tenc ing. The dis tri ct cour t sim ply had not diff ere ntiat ed bet we en the

pur e dr ug and wa st e pr oduc ts beca use , at that tim e, it mad e no dif f e r e n c e t o t he se nten ce. Und er that fact patt ern, this court held that an evide ntiar y hear ing wa s nec es sar y to deci de
how muc h of the tot al we ight wa s pur e phen ylacet one, and thus wh e ther the def enda nt qualif ied for mo dif

icat ion. He re, He rnand ez has not clai me d in this app eal that bas ed on the

rec ord and the so urc e s c i ted by the PSR it coul d not reas onably be conc lude d that he wa s

res pons ible for m ore t han 4.5 kg of cra ck

. U nder Di ll on , that is w here ou r inquir y end s.

As we hold above, ther e wa s no suc h amb iguity, beca use the dis tri ct cour t ado pt ed the 4

PSR i n i ts en tir ety.

6 Case: 09-40546 Document: 00511523284 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/28/2011No. 09-40546

2 .5 k g o f cra ck

, th a t a n o th e r co n sp ira to r te stifie d th a t “m o st” o f th e 1 2 .5 k g o f

p o w d e r co ca in e fo r w h ich th a t co n sp ira to r w a s re sp o n sib le w a s c o o k e d in to

c ra ck

, th a t th e re w a s e v id e n ce o f 1 5 k g o f cra ck d e liv e re d b y a n o t h e r

co n sp ira to r, a n d th a t th e P S R ’s ca lcu la tio n s e x clu d e d fu rth e r e v id e n ce o f cra ck

d istrib u tio n b y th e co n sp ira cy

. S e e U n i t e d S t a tes v

. T

h o m a s , 9 6 3 F .2 d 6 3

, 6 4

(5 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (n o tin g th a t in co n tro lle d su b sta n ce co n v ictio n s, th e se n te n ce is

b a se d n o t o n ly o n th e a m o u n t in v o lv e d in th e o ffe n se fo r w h ich th e d e fe n d a n t

w a s co n v icte d

, b u t a lso o n th e co n tra b a n d in v o lv e d in a cts th a t w e re p a rt o f th e

sa m e co u rse o f co n d u ct o r co m m o n sch e m e o r p la n a s th e o ffe n se o f co n v ictio n ). 5

III.

F o r th e fo re g o in g re a so n s, th e ju d g m e n t is A F F IR M E D

.

To the extent He rnand ez argues that the dis tri ct co urt erred by acc ept ing the PSR’s 5

ass ump tio n that the pow der coc aine tra nsp ort ed by me mbe rs of the cons pir acy wa s conver ted

to a com par able amo unt of cra ck

, this argum ent mus t be rejec ted

. It is the law of this cir cuit
that a dis tri ct cour t is “p erm itt ed to conver t a quant ity of pow der coc a i n e t o a c o mp arabl e

amo unt of cra ck coc aine for se n t e n c i ng pur pos es if the conver sio n wa s for es eeabl e to the
def enda nt. ” Uni ted States v. Burns

, 526 F.3d 852, 859 (5t h Cir. 2008)

, cit ing Uni ted States v. Booke r , 334 F.3d 406

, 414 (5t h Cir

. 2003)

.

7 Case: 09-40546 Document: 00511523284 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/28/2011