Opinion ID: 615762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Motion for a Reduction of Sentence

Text: On January 14, 2008, Rivera filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to the retroactive application of the amended crack guideline. The district court denied the motion and Rivera moved for reconsideration. [3] In an unpublished opinion granting the motion for reconsideration but adhering to the initial ruling, the court held that Rivera had failed to satisfy the threshold requirement for a sentence modification, i.e., that his applicable guideline range had subsequently been lowered by the Commission. Rivera argued that the applicable range was the post-departure range, that is, the range three offense levels below his career offender range. As discussed further below, the post-departure range had been lowered by the retroactive amendment. The district judge rejected that argument. Relying on, inter alia, United States v. Darton, 595 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3444, 177 L.Ed.2d 348 (2010), and United States v. Tolliver, 570 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir.2009), the court held that Rivera's applicable range was the pre-departure career offender range, which had not been lowered. United States v. Rivera, No. 94-CR-112 (EBB), 2010 WL 1169767, at -3 (D.Conn. Mar. 25, 2010). As a result, the court concluded that Rivera was ineligible for consideration for a sentence modification. See id. On March 31, 2010, Rivera filed a notice of appeal.