UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------x 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

- against -

RAMON PAULINO, 

Defendant. 

----------------------------------------x 

Sweet, D.J. 

02 Cr . 437 - 1 (RWS) 

0 P I N I 0 N 

Ramon Paulino ("Paulino" or " Defendant " ) , proceeding 

pro se, h as moved for a reduction of his sen tence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582 (c) (2). For the reasons set forth below, the motion 

is denied . 

I. Prior Proceedings 

On or about June 3 , 2002 , Paulino pleaded guilty to 

one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the 

intent to distribute coca ine , i n v i olation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 , 

and to one count of distri bution and possession with intent to 

distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812 , 84 l (a) (1 ), 

84l(b) (1) (B) , and 18 U.S . C. § 2 . His plea was accepted on July 

2 , 2002 . Paulino failed to appear for his schedul ed sentencing 

1 
on November 8 , 2002 , and he was re-arrested on October 30 , 2014 . 

At the January 28 , 2016 sentencing hearing , the Court 

addressed the sentencing opinion it filed on November 12, 2015, 

which applied the November 1, 2014 versi on of the Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual in determining Paulino ' s guidelines range to 

be 63 to 78 months' imprisonment , with a mandatory minimum term 

of 60 months ' imprisonment. The range was based primarily on the 

total quantity of drugs involved : 979 grams of cocaine . After 

hearing from the Government and the defense at the hearing, the 

Court varied downward and sentenced Paulino to the mandatory 

minimum term of 60 months ' imprisonment on each count , to run 

concurrentl y , followed by four years of supervised release. 

Paulino did not pursue a direct appeal of his 

sentence. The instant motion was filed on December 5 , 2016 and 

supplemented on January 12, 2017 . The Government filed its 

opposition on May 31 , 2017 , at which point the motion was deemed 

fully submitted . 

II. Standard of Review 

Section 3582(c) "does not authorize a . 

resentencing proceeding ," but rather provides for the 

2 
possibility of "a limited adjustment to an otherwise final 

sentence" following a "two- step approach." Dillon v . United 

States, 560 U. S. 817, 825-27 (2010) . "At step one , § 3582 (c) (2) 

requires the court to follow the Commission's instructions 

to determine the prisoner' s eligibility for a sentence 

modification and the extent of the reduction authorized . " Id. at 

827 . As to whether the defendant is eligible for any reduction , 

"§ 181.lO(b) (1) requires the court to begin by ' determining the 

amended guideline range that would have been applicable to the 

defendant' had the relevant amendment been in effect at the time 

of the initial sentencing . " Id . (quoting U. S . S.G. § 181.lO(b) (1) 

(alteration omitted)). If "an amendment . does not have the 

effect of lowering the defendant ' s applicable guideline range," 

then a "reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is 

. not authorized under 18 U. S . C. § 3582 (c) (2) ." U.S . S . G. § 

181.10 (a) (2) (8). Similarly, "[c] ourts generally may not reduce 

the defendant's term of imprisonment . to a term that is 

less than the minimum of the amended guidelines range" produced 

by the amendment . Dillon , 560 U. S . at 827 (internal quotation 

marks omitted); United States v . Erskine , 717 F.3d 131 , 137041 

(2d Cir. 2013) (recognizing that Section 181.10 prohibits 

reductions below the bottom of the amended range, irrespective 

of departures or variances granted at the original sentencing) . 

3 
"At step two of the inquiry," if the defendant has 

been determined to be eligible, and the extent of his 

eligibility has been established, the Court must decide in light 

of the applicable Section 3553(a) factors whether to grand a 

reduction "in whole or in part under the particular 

circumstances of the case." Dillon , 560 U. S . at 827 . This 

decision is committed to the court ' s discretion . See United 

States v. Mock , 612 F.3d 133 , 137 (2d Cir . 2010) ("If, and only 

if, a defendant is eligible for a reduction in sentence under 18 

U.S . C. § 3582(c) (2) and U.S.S.G. § lBl.10, then the second step 

of the analytical framework set forth in Dillon requires the 

district court to consider any applicable§ 3553(a) factors and 

determine whether, in its discretion , the reduction authorized 

by reference to the policies relevant at step one is warranted 

in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the 

case. " ) (internal quotation marks omitted) . 

As Paulino is proceeding pro se, his motion is 

construed liberally. See Graham v . Henderson , 89 F.3d 75 , 79 (2d 

Cir . 1996) ("[T ]he pleadings of a prose plaintiff must be read 

liberally and should be interpreted to ' raise the strongest 

arguments that they suggest .'" ) (quoting Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 

F . 3d 787 , 790 (2d Cir . 1994); see also Arbabsiar v. United 

States, No . 11 CR 897 JFK, 2014 WL 6463229 , at *1 (S . D. N. Y. Nov. 

4 
III. 

18, 2014) , cert. denied (2d Cir . 14-4596 , July 6, 2015). 

Paulino ' s Motion for a Reduced Sentence is Denied 

Paulino argues that his sentence should be reduced 

pursuant to the amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines Manual ' s 

Drug Quantity Table. In its Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, 

which became effective November 1 , 2014, the Commission lowered 

the penalties for most drug offenses by reducing most offense 

levels on Section 2Dl . l ' s Drug Quantity Table by two levels. 

This amendment affected not only defendants sentenced under 

Section 2Dl . l , but also any defendant sentenced under a 

guideline that used the Drug Quantity Table in a crossreference . See, e.g., U.S . S.G. § 2Dl.5 (CCE) ; U. S.S . G. § 

2Sl . l(a) (money laundering). In Amendment 788, the Commission 

decreed that Amendment 782 may be applied retroactively to lower 

the sentences of previously-sentenced inmates . 

In calculating Paulino ' s sentence, this Court applied 

the November 1 , 2014 edition of the Guidelines Manual, and 

therefore Paulino already benefitted from Amendment 782 to the 

Guidelines . See ECF No . 19 at p. 6. Paulino further urges the 

Court to look at November 1 , 2015 and November 1 , 2016 versions 

of the Guidelines Manual. Even assuming any changes to Section 

5 
2Dl . 1 may be appl ied retroactively, no such changes to Sect ion 

2D l. 1 , or other sections re l evant to Paulino ' s sentencing , were 

made . "A reduction in the defendant ' s term of impri sonment i s 

not consistent with this po l icy statement and therefore is not 

authorized under 18 U. S . C. § 3582(c) (2) if . . an amendment 

. does not have the effect of lowering the defendant ' s 

applicabl e guideline range ." U. S . S . G. § l Bl.lO(a) (2) (B) . Because 

there i s no amendment that had the effect of lowering Pauli no ' s 

applicable guideline range , no reduction of sentence may occur . 

Furthermore , Paulino was sub j ect to a mandatory 

minimum sentence of 60 months ' imprisonment . He received the 

mandatory minimum sentence , which reflect ed a downward variance 

from the calculated guidelines range of 63 to 78 months ' 

imprisonment . Where a statutory mandatory minimum sentence is 

applicable , the passage of a retroactive guideline amendment i s 

irrel evant . See , e . g ., United States v . Dimeo , 28 F . 3d 240 , 241 

(1st Cir . 1994) ; United States v. Hanlin , 48 F . 3d 121 , 1 24-25 

(3d Cir . 1 995) ; United States v . Mullanix , 99 F . 3d 323 , 324 (9th 

Cir . 19 9 6) . 

To the extent that Pauli no ' s supplement to his§ 3582 

motion can be construed to make a Johnson v. United States, 135 

S . Ct . 2551 (2015) , argument , and setting aside procedural 

6 
issues with such an argument, it is also irrelevant. In Johnson, 

the Supreme Court held that the so-called "residual clause" 

within the definition of "violent felony" in the Armed Career 

Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e) (2) (B), violates due 

process . Id . at 2653 . Paulino was not convicted of any counts 

involving the ACCA , but rather of one count of conspiracy to 

distribute and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, in 

violation of 21 U. S.C . § 846, and to one count of distribution 

and possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 

21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 84l(a) (1) , 84l(b) (1) (B) , and 18 U.S . C. § 2 . 

Thus, Johnson has no impact on Paulina ' s sentence. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, Paulina ' s petition for a 

reduction of sentence is denied. 

It is so ordered . 

New York, NY 

June (; , 2017 

7 

ROBERT W. SWEET 

U.S.D.J.