Source: http://openjurist.org/126/f3d/430/berrios-v-united-states
Timestamp: 2013-12-13 03:42:26
Document Index: 563980778

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 846', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 9', '§ 1', '§ 3582', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 846', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1']

126 F3d 430 Berrios v. United States | OpenJurist
126 F. 3d 430 - Berrios v. United States	Home126 f3d 430 berrios v. united states
126 F3d 430 Berrios v. United States 126 F.3d 430
Nahum BERRIOS, Petitioner-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 46, Docket 96-2440.
Argued Sept. 12, 1997.Decided Oct. 17, 1997.
Devin McLaughlin, Langrock Sperry and Wool, Middlebury, VT (Peter F. Langrock, of counsel), for Petitioner-Appellant.
Emily Berger, Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY (Zachary W. Carter, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Eric Friedberg, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Respondent-Appellee.
Nahum Berrios appeals from his resentencing by Judge Dearie. On March 6, 1991, Berrios originally pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In April, he was sentenced to 210 months in prison. Thereafter, the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("Sentencing Guidelines") were amended in a way that permitted Berrios to seek a reduction of his sentence pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.10.1 The government did not oppose the motion, and Judge Dearie resentenced Berrios to 168 months in prison. On appeal,2 Berrios raises an issue that he did not present to the district court. He claims that an amendment to Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.10(b), promulgated after his original sentencing, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, art. I, § 9, cl. 3, because it prevented the court from further reducing his sentence based on certain other amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. Because Berrios' attorney did not raise this argument at the resentencing, Berrios asserts that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree.
At the time of Berrios' original sentencing, Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.10(a) authorized a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)3 when the Sentencing Guidelines range is lowered subsequent to the original sentencing. However, such a reduction was authorized only in the case of Sentencing Guidelines amendments designated in § 1B1.10(c).4 After Berrios was originally sentenced, § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines was amended to lower the base-offense level for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 846; this amendment was designated in § 1B1.10(c) as a possible basis for a reduction in sentence under § 1B1.10(a). These changes were the basis for Berrios' successful motion to reduce his sentence.
The issue in this appeal arises from an amendment to § 1B1.10(b). At the time of Berrios' original sentencing, § 1B1.10(b) provided that, in resentencing proceedings under § 1B1.10(a), the court, in determining whether and to what extent a reduction in sentence is warranted, "should consider the sentence that it would hav