08-5444 -cr

US A v. Avi les 1 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OFAP P EA LS 2 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 3 4 SUM M AR Y O RD ER 5 6 RUL I NGS BY S UM M ARY ORDE R DO NOT HAVE PR E CE DE NT I AL E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O S UM M ARY 7 O R D E R S F ILE D A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1, 20 0 7 , I S P E R M ITT E D A N D I S G O V E R N E D B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S 8 LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1 AN D FEDER A L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A B R I EF O R O TH ER 9 P A P E R I N WHI C H A L I T I G A N T C I T E S A S U M M A R Y OR D E R , I N E A C H P ARAGR AP H I N WHI C H A 10 C I T A T I ON A P P E A R S , A T L E A S T ONE CI T A T I ON M U S T E I T HE R B E T O T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR 11 BE ACCOM PA NI E D BY T HE NOT AT I ON: “ ( S UM M ARY ORDE R) . ” A PART Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY 12 O R D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O P Y O F T H A T S U M M A R Y O R D E R T O G E T H E R W IT H T H E P A P E R IN 13 W H I C H TH E S U M M A R Y O R D ER I S C I TED O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL 14 U N L E S S T H E S U M M A R Y O R D E R IS A V A IL A B L E IN A N E L E C T R O N IC D A T A B A S E W H IC H IS 15 PU BL I CL Y ACC E S S I BL E W I T HO UT PAYM E NT O F FE E ( S UCH AS T HE DA T ABAS E AVAI L ABL E AT 16 H TTP: / / W W W . C A 2. U SCO U R TS. GO V / ) . I F NO CO PY I S SERV ED B Y REA SO N O F TH E AV A I LAB I LI TY 17 OF T HE ORDE R ON S UCH A DAT ABAS E, TH E C I TATI ON M US T I NCL UDE RE FE RE NCE T O THAT 18 DAT ABAS E AND T HE DOCKET NUM BE R OF T HE CA S E I N W HI CH THE ORDE R W AS E NT E RE D. 19 20 At a stated te rm of the United States Co urt o f Appea ls for the Sec ond Circuit, held at the 21 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan United States C ourthouse, 500 P earl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on 22 the 25 day

of Nove mber, two thousand nine. th 23 24 PRES ENT: Robert A. Katzm ann, 25 Ba rrington D. Parker , Ger ard E. L

y nch, 26 27 Circuit Judges

. 28

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 29 30 United States of America, Appellee , 31 v. No. 08-5444-c r 32 33 Migue l Avil e s, 34 De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt. 35 36

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- 37 APPEARI

NG F OR APPEL LANT: Richard Jasper, Ne w York, N ew Yor k 38 39 4 0 A P P E A RI

N G F O R A P P E L L E E : Preet Bharar a, United States Attorney for th e So u th e rn 41 Di stric t of Ne w Y or k ( Am and a

Krame r a

nd Kathe ri nePol k 42 Fa illa, Assistant United St ates Attorne y s, of counsel), New 43 York, Ne w York 44 45 Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork (Shira 46 A. Scheindlin, Judge ).2 1 U PON D U E CON SID E RA T I O N , I T I S H E RE B Y O RD E RE D , A D JU D G E D , AND 2 DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFF IRMED. 3 Migue l Aviles, a fe dera l prisoner, a ppeals from an orde r of the United States District 4 Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork (Sche indlin, J .) deny ing his motion for a

sentenc e 5 reduc tion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on a mendments to the United States 6 SentencingGuidelines that lower ed the ba se off ense le vels applica

ble to offe nses involving c rac k 7 cocaine. 8 “A district cour t may not ge nera lly

modify a ter m of imprisonment once it has bee n 9 imposed.” Cortorreal v. United States , 486 F.3d 742, 744 ( 2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). An 10 exception to that rule applies to “a defe ndant who has be en sente nced to a term of imprisonment 11 based on a

sentenc ing rang e that has subse quently been lowe red by

the SentencingCommi ssion.” 12 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . Although Aviles was sente nced f or off enses involvingcra ck coc aine, 13 and the guidelines applica ble to such off

enses we re lowe red in 2007 by amendments made 14 re tr oa c tiv e in 2 00 8, se e U. S.S. G. Sup p. to A pp . C, ame nd s. 70 6 &71 3 ( 20 08 ); United States v. 15 McGee , 553 F.3d 225, 225 ( 2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam), Aviles is not eligible f or such a reduc tion 16 be c a

us e his orig inal se nte nc e wa s n ot “ba se d o n”thesu bs e qu e ntl y-l ow e re d c ra c k guid e lin e s. 17 Th e guid e lin e s r ang e fo r Avil e s’ s o ff e ns e s w a s c a lc ulate d at 21 0–26 2 mo nth s’ 18 imprisonment. This calculation was a cade mic, howeve r, bec ause theoffe nses of c onviction 19 c arrie d ma

nd ator y min imum se nte nc e s to ta lin glif e imp ri so nme nt p lus 35 ye ars . T hat mi nim um, 20 and the guidelines, wer e, in turn, re ndere d inapplicable by a g overnme nt motion, pursuant to 18 21 U.S.C. § 3553(e) a nd U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, based on Aviles’ s substantial assistance to law 22 enforceme nt. Accordingly , the district court sente nced him to imprisonment for 144 months. 23 Th at se nte nc e bo reno ob vio us re latio n to theguid e lin e s r e c omm e nd atio n. Mo re ov e r, a s is3 1 apparent from the se ntencingtranscript, the sentencewas ba sed on a c are ful balanc ing of the 2 fac ts and circ umstances of the offe nses, the cha

rac ter a nd history of the de fenda

nt, and the 3 various purpose s of sentenc ing. T he guidelines wer e mentioned only briefly and obliquely

in that 4 dis c us sio n, and these nte nc e wa s in

no se ns e “ ba se d o n”thea pp lic a bleguid e lin e s. Th e law i s 5 clea

r that whe n the district court grants a § 5K 1.1 motion and does not base the resulting 6 sentenc e on a guidelines ca lculation, the def endant is not elig ible for a sentenc e re duction under 7 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . United States v. Wil liams, 551 F.3d 182, 186-87 ( 2d Cir. 2009). 8 Ev e n if

Av ile s w e ree lig ibl e fo r s uc h a re du c tio n, thede c isi on

wh e the r t o gra

nt a 9 reduc tion is confided to the sound discre tion of the district court. United States v. Borde n , 564 10 F.3d 100, 104 ( 2d Cir. 2009). Her e, the district cour t declined to re duce thesentenc e, statingthat 11 theorig inal se nte nc e “ wa s n e ve r atta c he d to theguid e lin e s, ” be c a us e thec ourt

“ g avewh at [it] 12 thought wa s right that day , without consideration to the guidelines.” B eca use the sente nce w as 13 “alr eady

lenient,” a

nd the cour

t continued to believe it wa s the “right” sentenc e, the c ourt 14 declined to modify the sentenc e. We ca

n see no a buse of discr etion in that decision. 15 Acc ording ly , the judgment of the district cour t is AFF IRMED. 16 17 FOR THECOURT: 18 CATHERI NE O’HAGAN WOLFE, Cler k of Court 19 20 21 B y :