Opinion ID: 621761
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentencing Amendment

Text: Suchite also requests that we use our discretionary powers and remand for further sentencing proceedings in light of Amendment 742 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which deleted the criminal history recency points used to calculate Suchite's criminal history category. The former Sentencing Guidelines, under which Suchite was sentenced, provided in pertinent part: Add 2 points [to calculate the criminal history category] if the defendant committed the instant offense less than two years after release from imprisonment on a sentence counted under (a) or (b) or while in imprisonment or escape status on such a sentence. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e) (Historical Notes, 2010 Amendment 742). Because Suchite violated § 1326 by illegally reentering the United States after removal, within two years of being discharged from parole, the district court properly added two points under then-applicable § 4A1.1(e). Amendment 742, which deleted the recency points provision, went into effect on November 1, 2010, three months after Suchite was sentenced and while he was pursuing this appeal. U.S.S.G. Supp. Appx. C., Amend. 742. The Sentencing Commission enacted the Amendment because it determined that the recency of the offense did not necessarily reflect an increased risk of recidivism or increased culpability. Id. The Commission did not give Amendment 742 retroactive effect. See U.S. Sentn'g Comm'n Public Meeting Minutes (Sept. 16, 2010) (explicitly choosing not to make the Amendment retroactive); see also United States v. Diaz-Cardenas, 351 F.3d 404, 409 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that substantive amendments to the Guidelines have no retroactive effect unless specifically referenced in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (no reference to Amendment 742). Under Amendment 742, Suchite's criminal history category would have been III rather than IV, and his sentencing guideline range would have been 46-57 months instead of 57-71 months. Suchite relies on two First Circuit decisions to support his remand request: United States v. Godin, 522 F.3d 133, 135-36 (1st Cir.2008) (per curiam) (remanding sentence to give the district court a chance to reconsider the sentence and decide whether the original or some different sentence should be imposed and to determine what additional proceedings, if any, the judge might find helpful); and United States v. Ahrendt, 560 F.3d 69, 79-80 (1st Cir.2009) (same). We recently declined to follow the First Circuit in a similar case, however. See Urena, 659 F.3d at 910 (declining to adopt the approach in Godin where the sentence was substantively reasonable and procedurally correct). Like Urena, the sentence in this case is neither substantively nor procedurally unreasonable, and Suchite does not contend it is. Our decision in Urena requires us to affirm Suchite's sentence. AFFIRMED.