Court Opinion

ID: 9951624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 16:01:01.777708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:50.217774
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3229     Document: 010111017179   Date Filed: 03/18/2024   Page: 1
                                                                FILED
                                                    United States Court of Appeals
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         Tenth Circuit

                             FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                      March 18, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                     Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                         Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

           Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                    No. 23-3229
                                              (D.C. No. 5:09-CR-40041-JAR-1)
  ADAN MOLINA,                                            (D. Kan.)

           Defendant - Appellant.
                        _________________________________

                             ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Adan Molina, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district

 court’s denial of his request for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.

 § 3582(c)(1)(A), seeking compassionate release. Exercising jurisdiction under

 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
 determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the
 determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and
 judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the
 case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
 persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-3229   Document: 010111017179     Date Filed: 03/18/2024   Page: 2

                                 BACKGROUND

       In 2010, the government charged Molina with 59 counts for his acts in

 leading a large drug-distribution organization. A few days into Molina’s trial,

 he agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to

 distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in

 violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). His relevant conduct included

 1.5 kilograms of actual methamphetamine and 24.14 kilograms of a mixture

 containing methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Molina to life

 imprisonment—the sentence advised by the Guidelines given his total-offense

 level of 44 (reduced to the sentencing table’s maximum level 43). Molina

 appealed, but we enforced his appellate waiver and dismissed his appeal. See

 United States v. Molina, 432 F. App’x 744, 745 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).

       In 2023, Molina filed a motion for compassionate release. In this motion,

 Molina claimed extraordinary and compelling reasons to warrant a reduction. 1

       1
         Molina again seeks to challenge his base-offense level, an argument
 which the district court has rejected repeatedly. In 2014, the Sentencing
 Commission retroactively reduced the base-offense levels for
 methamphetamine. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.6 (describing Amendment
 782). Because the retroactive change reduced Molina’s base-offense level from
 38 to 36, he filed a motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
 In ruling on Molina’s motion, the district court noted that, with the retroactive
 two-level reduction, Molina’s total-offense level would be 42 (reduced from
 44) and his Guidelines range would be “360 months to life imprisonment”
 (reduced from life imprisonment). United States v. Molina, No. 09-40041-01,
 2015 WL 5825124, at *1 (D. Kan., Oct 6, 2015). But, after weighing the
 § 3553(a) factors, the court denied Molina’s motion because the court “would
 nonetheless sentence Molina at the high end of the amended Guidelines range
                                                               (footnote continued)
                                         2
Appellate Case: 23-3229   Document: 010111017179      Date Filed: 03/18/2024   Page: 3

 The district court denied his motion after determining that no extraordinary and

 compelling reasons supported compassionate release. United States v. Molina,

 No. 9-40041-01, 2023 WL 6927313, *4 (D. Kan. Oct. 19, 2023). In doing so,

 the district court considered and applied the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id. at

 *4–5. Molina timely appealed.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

       We review a district court’s order denying a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for

 abuse of discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th

 Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an incorrect

 conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” Id. (quoting United

 States v. Battle, 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013)).

 of 360 months to life, resulting in a life sentence.” Id. at *3. In his
 compassionate-release motion, Molina inappropriately challenged his base-
 offense level on this same basis. United States v. Molina, No. 09-40041-01,
 2023 WL 6927313, at *3 (D. Kan., Oct. 19, 2023) (“As the Court previously
 found, under the Amended Guidelines, Molina’s base offense level . . . is 36.”).
 The court maintained that it would still sentence Molina to life imprisonment.
 Id. at *5.
        Molina advances other arguments, including that the Guidelines are
 arbitrary and violate his Sixth Amendment rights. But Molina must show that
 his arguments are supported by a change in the law. See U.S.S.G.
 § 1B1.13(b)(6). In 2023, the Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines’
 policy statement governing compassionate release. Id. § 1B1.13. The amended
 statement provides that a district court may consider “a change in the law,” if
 such change creates a gross disparity between the defendant’s sentence and the
 sentence he would receive after the change. Id. § 1B1.13(b)(6). Because no
 circuit court nor the Supreme Court has interpreted the drug Guidelines as
 Molina wishes, his compassionate-release motion on this ground lacks merit.
                                          3
Appellate Case: 23-3229    Document: 010111017179     Date Filed: 03/18/2024     Page: 4

                                    DISCUSSION

         Federal courts are generally forbidden from modifying a term of

 imprisonment after it has been imposed. Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S.

 522, 526 (2011) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)). But this “rule of finality is

 subject to a few narrow exceptions,” including when a defendant moves for a

 sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1) for compassionate release. United States

 v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821, 830 (10th Cir. 2021) (quoting Freeman, 564 U.S. at

 526).

         District courts follow a three-step test in evaluating compassionate-

 release motions. Id. at 831 (citations omitted). First, the court “must find

 whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction.”

 Id. (cleaned up). Second, the court “must find whether such reduction is

 consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

 Commission.” Id. (cleaned up). And third, the court must “consider any

 applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the

 reduction authorized by steps one and two is warranted in whole or in part

 under the particular circumstances of the case.” 2 Id. (cleaned up). District

         The § 3553(a) factors are (1) “the nature and circumstances of the
         2

 offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”; (2) “the need for
 the sentence” to “reflect the seriousness of the offense,” deter future crime,
 protect the public, and effectively provide the defendant with treatment;
 (3) “the kinds of sentences available”; (4) “the kinds of sentence and the
 sentencing range established” for the offense at the time of sentencing;
 (5) certain policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; (6) “the
                                                               (footnote continued)
                                          4
Appellate Case: 23-3229    Document: 010111017179      Date Filed: 03/18/2024   Page: 5

 courts may deny a compassionate-release motion on any of the three steps

 without addressing the others. United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 942–43 (10th

 Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1043 (10th Cir.

 2021)).

         On appeal, Molina argues that the district court abused its discretion in

 finding no extraordinary and compelling reasons and in ruling that the

 § 3553(a) factors weighed against a reduction. We review those arguments in

 turn.

         District courts have discretion to “determine for themselves what

 constitutes ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons.’” Maumau, 993 F.3d at 832

 (citing § 3582(c)(1)(A)). But that discretion “is bounded by the requirement . . .

 that a reduction in sentence be consistent with applicable policy statements

 issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. In 2023, after we decided Maumau,

 the Sentencing Commission updated its policy statements governing

 compassionate release, as provided in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.

         In finding no extraordinary and compelling reason, the district court first

 rejected Molina’s arguments that our caselaw has changed the Guidelines.

 Molina, 2023 WL 6927313, at *3. The court reasoned that the amount of

 methamphetamine “was properly attributed to Molina as relevant conduct,

 need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities” among similarly situated
 defendants; and (7) the need for victim restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

                                           5
Appellate Case: 23-3229   Document: 010111017179       Date Filed: 03/18/2024    Page: 6

 which is permissible under the Sentencing Guidelines.” Id. And the court noted

 that Molina’s Guidelines range “do[es] not run afoul of the Tenth Circuit’s”

 precedents. Id. Then the court “commend[ed] Molina on his rehabilitation

 efforts,” but the court noted that “it is well settled that rehabilitation alone is

 not an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release.” Id. at

 *4. Finally, the court ruled that Molina’s “strong family support and age of 43”

 do not provide a “sufficiently extraordinary and compelling reason[] to reduce

 [his] sentence.” Id.

       The district court also determined that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

 weighed against compassionate release. Id. at *5. In weighing the factors, the

 district court focused on Molina’s “serious felony offense,” his “possessing a

 firearm during” that offense, and his leadership role to conclude that

 “[r]educing Molina’s sentence by any amount of time would not reflect the

 seriousness of the offense,” “provide just punishment,” or “protect the public.”

 Id.

       The district court acted within its discretion in denying Molina’s

 compassionate-release motion: Molina has identified no change in the law to

 support his motion, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6); and the court properly

 weighed the § 3553(a) factors. Those factors require the court to consider “the

 whole of the defendant’s person, character, and crimes,” United States v. Smith,

 756 F.3d 1179, 1184 (10th Cir. 2014), including “post-conviction conduct,”

 United States v. Lente, 759 F.3d 1149, 1168 (10th Cir. 2014). Because the

                                           6
Appellate Case: 23-3229   Document: 010111017179      Date Filed: 03/18/2024   Page: 7

 district court considered both Molina’s rehabilitative efforts and his offense

 conduct to conclude that his life sentence is still appropriate, we affirm.

                                  CONCLUSION

       For all these reasons, we affirm the district court.

                                          Entered for the Court

                                          Gregory A. Phillips
                                          Circuit Judge

                                          7