2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-29-2010

USA v. Manuel Peguero

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2932

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Manuel Peguero" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1976.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1976
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2932

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MANUEL D. PEGUERO,

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 90-CR-00097-001)

District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 4, 2010

Before: BARRY, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 29, 2010 )

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Manuel D. Peguero appeals from an order of the United States District Court for

the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which denied his motion to reduce his sentence. We

will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
 This court affirmed the District Court’s denial of relief. United States v. Peguero, 1

No. 97-7384 (3d Cir. Feb. 27, 1998). The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the

District Court’s failure to advise Peguero of his right to appeal did not entitle him to relief

because he knew of his right and suffered no prejudice. See United States v. Peguero,

526 U.S. 23 (1999).

 The Government also noted as much in its response to Peguero’s § 3582(c) motion. 2

2

In January 1992, Peguero pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The

District Court sentenced Peguero in April 1992 to 274 months in prison. He did not file a

direct appeal, but did later file an unsuccessful motion to set aside his conviction and

sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Peguero filed the instant motion pursuant to 18 1

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which allows a court to reduce an imposed sentence based on a

subsequent amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines if the amendment is

named in the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10) as one that

may be retroactively applied. See United States v. McBride, 283 F.3d 612, 614-15 (3d

Cir. 2002). Peguero did not specify any particular amendment in his § 3582(c)(2) motion,

but as his crime involved cocaine, the District Court naturally assumed that he was

requesting relief pursuant to Amendment 706, which reduced by two levels the base

offense level for certain crack cocaine offenses. See United States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207,

219 (3d Cir. 2008). The Court appointed counsel for Peguero, who later filed a

successful motion to withdraw, because she determined that Peguero’s offense involved

only powder cocaine, and not crack. The District Court then denied Peguero’s § 2

3582(c)(2) motion, noting that Amendment 706 was not applicable, and that it could not
 Peguero claimed in the District Court that his criminal history category was 3

overstated and that he should have been granted an additional one-point reduction in his

offense level for pleading guilty. On appeal, Peguero again complains about the way his

criminal history was calculated. His claims are not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2)

proceeding.

address Peguero’s other sentencing claims by way of such a motion.

The District Court properly denied relief. Section 3582(c)(2) only applies if an

applicable amendment lowers a defendant’s sentencing range. Peguero did not identify

any amendment that would lower his sentencing range. The District Court lacked

jurisdiction to consider Peguero’s other challenges to his sentence. United States v. 3

Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 155-56 (3d Cir. 2009). 

We will therefore affirm the District Court’s judgment.