Opinion ID: 3195512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Basis for Mr. Diaz-Gomez’s Sentence

Text: Mr. Diaz-Gomez pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy offense and was sentenced to ten years in prison, the mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). The United States Probation Office initially calculated Mr. Diaz-Gomez’s sentencing guideline range between 97 and 121 months 2 based on his total adjusted offense level and criminal history category. But the probation office modified the range upward to account for the statutorily required minimum of ten years. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1. The district court adopted the modified guideline range of 120 to 121 months and sentenced Mr. Diaz-Gomez to 120 months. III. Mr. Diaz-Gomez’s Response to the Guideline Amendment In 2014, the Sentencing Commission adopted a retroactive guideline amendment, retroactively reducing the offense levels relating to specified quantities of controlled substances. U.S.S.G. app. C. suppl., amend. 782 (2014). Based on this amendment, Mr. Diaz-Gomez moved for a sentence reduction to 78 months. The probation office concluded that the guideline sentence would remain at 120 months because of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1 (“Where a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.”). IV. Mr. Diaz-Gomez’s Ineligibility for Relief Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Section 3582(c)(2) provides “a narrow exception to the rule of finality” that “applies only to a limited class of prisoners—namely, those whose sentence was based on a sentencing range subsequently lowered by the [Sentencing] Commission.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825- 3 827 (2010). This exception does not apply when the defendant is sentenced to the minimum permitted under a statute. United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 542 (10th Cir. 1997). Mr. Diaz-Gomez was sentenced to 120 months in prison because that was the mandatory minimum allowed under federal law. 1 Thus, he was not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c). In these circumstances, Mr. Diaz-Gomez lacks any reasonable grounds to appeal the sentence.