# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 15 17

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Jo se Man ue l Av al os Ban de ras , als o k no wn as Jo se Aval os , als o k no wn as Gall o,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

9, 2 01 7 Fil ed : J un e 6 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

In 20 10
, Jo se Ban de ras was co nv ic te d of co ns pir ac y to di st rib ut e an d to po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1 an d 84 6.
At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t ad jus te d th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge up ward ba se d 1

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard G. Kop f, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Nebr as ka

.on ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce, se e USSG § 3C 1.1
, be cau se Ban de ras m ad e se ve ral th reat s

t o pr os pe ct iv e wit ne ss es

. The co ur t th en se nt en ced Ban de ras to th e to p of th e ad vi so ry ran ge of 29 2 to 36 5 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at he “ is

a da ng ero us in di vi du al an d wil l ha rm so m eo ne – an d ho ld s po te nt ia l to ha rm so m eo ne if he is no t in cap aci ta te d fo r a ve ry lo ng ti m e, an d th at is in fo rm m y se nt en ce, am on g
ot he r th in gs .” Ban de ras ap pe al ed
, an d we affi rm ed

. Uni te d St at es v. Ban de ra s , 41 1 F. App ’x 93 2 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ).

In 20 16
, Ban de ras m ov ed to red uc e hi s se nt en ce un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c) ba se d on Am en dm en t 78 2 to th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

. The am en dm en t red uc ed by

t w o l ev el s th e of

fen se le ve ls as si gn ed to th e dr ug qu an ti ti es th at tri gg er st at u t o r y

m an da to ry m in im

um pe na lt ie s in co rp or at ed in USSG § 2D1 .1. The effe ct in th is cas e

was to red uc e Ban de ras ’s to ta l of fen se le ve l fro m 38 to 36
, res ul ti ng in an am en de d

gu id el in e ran ge of 2 35 to 29 3 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

B a n de ras ur ge d th e di st ric t co ur t to im po se a se nt en ce of 23 5 m on th s, ci ti n g hi s al le ge d po st -s en te nc in g reh ab il it at io n, hi s ag e, an d hi s st at us as a Mex ic an ci ti zen who is li ke ly to be rem ov ed aft er hi s se nt en ce is se rv ed

. Th e go ve rn m en t

reco m m en de d a se nt en ce at th e to p of th e am en de d ran ge b e c a u s e of Ban de ras ’s vi ol en t h is to ry

an d t he da ng er h e p res en ts to so ci et y

.

The di st ric t co ur t red uc ed Ban de ras ’s s e n t e n c e to 29 3 m on th s, th e to p of th e

am en de d ran ge , e xp la in in g th at Ban de ras “ is po te nt i a l l y a ve ry da ng ero us pe rs on .”
Ban de ras ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by no t red uc in g th e se nt en ce fu rth er.

Und er § 35 82 (c)( 2)
, a de fen da nt m ay m ov e fo r a red uc ed se nt en c e i f h e was

se nt en ced ba se d on a “ se nt en ci ng ran ge th at ha s su bs eq ue nt ly be en lo wered

. . . if

su ch a red uc ti o n i s co ns is te nt wit h ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en ts is su ed by th e Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on .” The rel ev an t po li cy st at em en t, USSG § 1B 1.1 0, se ts fo rth

-2

-fact or s fo r co ns id erat io n in de te rm in in g th e ap pr op ria te ne ss an d ex te nt of a red uc ti on

un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. The po li cy st at em en t an d acco m pa nyin g co m

m en ta ry di rect th e

co ur t to co ns id er th e fact or s se t fo rth in § 35 53 (a) an d “ th e na tu re an d se rio us ne ss of th e da ng er to an y pe rs on or th e co m m un it y th at m ay be po se d by a red uc ti on in th e de fen da nt ’s te rm of im

pr is on m en t.” USSG § 1B 1.1 0, co m m en t. (n .1(B )(i ) & (ii )). The co m m en ta ry al so st at es th at th e co ur t “ m ay co ns id er po st -s en te nc in g co nd uc t of th e de fen da nt th at oc cu rred aft er im po si t i o n o f th e te rm of im pr is on m en t.” Id

. at

co m m en t. (n .1(B )(i ii )). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s red uc ti on un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2) fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Den to n , 8 21 F.3 d 10 12 , 1 01 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ).

Bo th Ban de ras ’s or ig in al se nt en ce an d am en de d se nt en ce were im po se d at th e
to p of the gu id el in e ran ge . A cou rt g en eral ly acts wit hi n i ts di sc ret io n by im po si ng

an am en de d se nt en ce th at is “ in pr op or ti on to th e in it ia l sen te nc e.” Uni te d St at es v. Pow er s , 82 8 F .3d 73 1, 7 35 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6) (pe r cu ria m ).

B a n d e ras co m

pl ai ns , ho wev er, th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n b y

co ns id eri ng pu bl ic sa fet y is su es th at were al read y ta ke n in to acco un t in es ta bl is hi ng th e g ui de li ne ran ge

. The gu id el in es refu te th is co nt en ti on

. “ In de te rm in in g th e

se nt en ce to im

po se w i t h i n t h e g ui de li ne ran ge , . . . th e co ur t m ay co ns id er, wit ho ut li m it at io n, an y in fo rm at io n co nc ern in g th e ba ck gr ou nd
, ch arac te r an d co nd uc t of th e de fen da nt , un le ss ot he rwis e pr oh ib it ed by la w.” USSG § 1B 1.4

. Thu s, t he co ur t
pr op erl y m ay co ns id er fa ct or s t ha t d et erm in e th e gu id el in e ran ge in de ci di ng whe re wit hi n th e ran ge to se nt en ce a de fen da nt

. Uni te d St at es v. Cr uz ad o- La ur ea no , 5 27
F.3 d 2 31 , 23 6- 37 (1s t Ci r. 20 08 ).

Ban de ras arg ue s th at th e co ur t gav e to o m uc h weig ht to hi s pri or co nv ic ti on s

an d t oo li tt le weig ht to hi s ci ti zen sh ip st at us , age , and effo rts at r eh ab il it at io n. Th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y co ns id ered Ban de ras ’s cri m in al hi st or y an d th e da ng er th at he

wou ld po se to th e co m

m un it y

. USSG § 1B 1.1 0, com m en t. (n.1 (B)( ii )). Ban de ras ’s th reat s to th ree tri al wit ne ss es an d hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on s, whi ch in vo lv ed th reat en in g

-3

-to ki ll hi s gi rlf rie nd
, ho ld in g he r cap ti ve , an d ph y si cal ly as sa ul ti ng an d st ran gl in g he r,

were rel ev an t to de te rm in in g whe re he sh o u ld be se nt en ced wit hi n th e ran ge

. The

co ur t reas on ab ly co nc lu de d th at Ban de ras was “ po te nt ia ll y a ve ry da ng ero us pe rs on ” who sh ou ld rece iv e a s en te nc e o f 29 3 m on th s.

Ban de r a s a l s o arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve to o li tt le weig ht to hi s po st

se nt en ci ng reh ab il it at io n, The co ur t “ m ay ” co ns id er su ch reh ab il it at io n, U SSG § 1B 1.1 0, co m

m en t. (n .1(B )(i ii )), bu t it is no t req ui red to red uc e a se nt en ce ba se d on th is type of ev id en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Her na nd ez -Ma rf il
, 82 5 F.3 d 41 0, 41 2- 13 (8 th
C i r

. 20 16 ) (p er cu ria m ). The co ur t was aware of th e ot he r m it ig at in g fact or s ad va nc ed by Ban de ras , in cl ud in g hi s ag e an d ci ti zen sh ip st at us , bu t ev id en tl y fo un d th em ou twei gh ed by ag gr av at in g fact or s. The co ur t’s de ci si on to li m it th e red uc ti on

as it di d was wit hi n t he pe rm is si bl e ran ge of d is cret io n.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-