2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-29-2010 

# U SA v . M anuel P egue ro P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2932

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M a nue l P e gue r o " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1976. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1976NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2932

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M ANUE L D. P E GUE RO , A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 90- C R - 00097- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary4, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary29, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM M anuel D . Peguer o appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor t h e Mi d d l e D i s t r i c to f

P e n n s y l v a n i a , w h i c h d e n i e d h i s m o t i o n t o r e d u c e h i s s e n t e n c e . We w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.T hi s cour taff i r m ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of r el i ef. U ni t ed St at es v. Peguer o, 1 N o. 97- 7384 ( 3d C i r . Feb. 27, 1998) . T he Supr eme C our tal s o aff i r m ed, hol di ng t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fai l ur e t o advi s e Peguer o of hi s r i ghtt o appea l di d notent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef beca us e he kne w of hi s r i ghtand s uffe r ed no pr ej udi ce. See U ni t ed St at es v. Peguer o, 5 2 6 U . S . 2 3 (19 9 9 ). T he G overnm ental s o not ed as m uch i n i t s r es pons e t o Peguer o’ s § 3582( c) m ot i on. 2 2 I n J anuary1992, Peguer o pl eade d gui l t yt o cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d Peguer o i n A pr i l 1992 t o 274 m ont hs i n pr i s on. H e di d notfi l e a di r ectappea l , butdi d l at erfi l e an uns ucce s s ful m ot i on t o s etas i de hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence , pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. Peguer o fi l ed the i ns t antm ot i on pur s uantt o 18 1 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) , w hi ch al l ow s a courtt o r educe an i m pos ed s ent ence bas ed on a su b se q u e n t am e n d m e n t to th e U n ited S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s if th e a m e n d m e n t is named i n t he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s pol i cys t at ement( U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10) as one that m aybe r etr oact i vel yappl i ed. See U ni t ed St at es v. M cB r i de, 283 F. 3d 612, 614- 15 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . Peguer o di d nots peci fyanypar t i cul aramendm enti n hi s § 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on, butas hi s cr i m e i nvol ved coc ai ne, t he D i s tr i ctC our tnatur al l yas s um ed thathe w as request i ng rel i ef pu rs uan tt o A m end m ent 706, w hich r edu ced b yt w o level s the b ase offe ns e l evel forcert ai n cr ack c ocai ne off ens es . See U ni t ed St at es v. W i s e, 515 F. 3d 207, 219 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . T he C our tappoi nt ed couns el forPeguer o, w ho l at erfi l ed a s ucce s s ful m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw , beca us e s he det erm i ned thatPeguer o’ s offe ns e i nvol ved on l ypo w der cocaine, and no tcrack. T he D i stri ctC ou rtt hen den i ed P egu ero’ s § 2 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on, not i ng t hatA m endment 706 w as notappl i cabl e, and thati tcoul d notPeguer o cl ai m ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hathi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryw as 3 o v e rsta ted a n d th a t h e sh o u ld h a v e b e e n g ra n ted a n a d d iti o n a l o n e -p o in t re d u c tio n in h is o f f e n se lev e l f

o r p lea d in g g u ilty . O n a p p e a l, P e g u e ro a g a in c o m p lain s a b o u t th e w a yh is cr i m i nal hi s t or yw as cal cul at ed. H i s cl ai m s ar e notcogni zabl e i n a § 3582( c) ( 2) pr ocee di ng. addr es s Peguer o’ s ot hers ent enci ng cl ai m s byw ayof s uch a mot i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed r el i ef. Sect i on 3582( c) ( 2) onl yappl i es i f an appl i cabl e amendm entl ow er s a def endant ’ s s ent enci ng r ange. Peguer o di d noti dent i fy anyamendm entt hatw oul d l ow erhi s s ent enci ng r ange. T he D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derPeguer o’ s ot herchal l enges t o hi s s ent ence . U ni t ed St at es v. 3 M a te o , 5 6 0 F .3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 5 -5 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). W e w ill th e re f

o re a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.