Court Opinion

ID: 2964344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:20.332403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:18.621851
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1411

                             REYNALDO RESTREPO-CONTRERAS,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                 [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Reynaldo Restrepo Contreras on brief pro se.
            ___________________________
            Guillermo Gil, United  States Attorney, Warren Vazquez,  Assistant
            _____________                           ______________
        United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles Espinosa, Senior Litigation
                                    _______________________
        Counsel, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   November 4, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Petitioner  Reynaldo  Restrepo Contreras,
                 ___________

            having persuaded the district court to reduce his sentence in

            light   of  a   retroactive   amendment  to   the  sentencing

            guidelines, complains  on appeal  that the court  should have

            further  reduced his  sentence pursuant  to  a nonretroactive

            amendment.  We disagree and therefore affirm.

                 In  1990,  petitioner  was  convicted  of  two  offenses

            involving cocaine base and sentenced to 360 months in prison.

            This  court affirmed  the  judgment on  direct  appeal.   See
                                                                      ___

            United States  v. Restrepo-Contreras,  942 F.2d 96  (1st Cir.
            _____________     __________________

            1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1066 (1992).  In February 1994,
                   ____________

            petitioner filed  a motion under  28 U.S.C.   2255  or in the

            alternative under 18 U.S.C.   3582(c)(2), seeking a reduction

            of sentence  because of  two amendments  to U.S.S.G.    2D1.1

            that  had taken effect the  previous November.   One of these

            (amendment 484)  defined the  term "mixture or  substance" to

            exclude materials  that must  be separated from  a controlled

            substance  before that  substance  could be  used; the  other

            (amendment 487) defined the term cocaine base to mean "crack"

            cocaine.  Amendment  484 was included in U.S.S.G.    1B1.10's

            listing of amendments that  may be considered for retroactive

            application; amendment 487 was not.

                 In a  February 1996  ruling, the district  court granted

            the motion in part.  Relying  on amendment 484, as well as on

            a later amendment that retroactively reduced the maximum base

                                         -2-

            offense  level  (amendment 505),  the court  recalculated the

            drug quantity, reconfigured the applicable offense level, and

            reduced petitioner's  sentence to 235 months--the  low end of

            the revised  sentencing range.  The  court declined, however,

            to  invoke  amendment  487  due to  its  prospective  nature.

            Contrary  to petitioner's  claim,  this latter  determination

            entailed no error.

                 "Resentencing" in the   3582(c)(2)  context is different

            from that  which occurs  when an  appellate  court vacates  a

            sentence  and  remands  for  resentencing.    In  the  latter

            situation, the lower  court normally is to apply  the version

            of  the guidelines  in  effect at  the  time of  resentencing

            (absent ex post facto concerns).  See, e.g., United States v.
                    _____________             ___  ____  _____________

            Graham, 83 F.3d 1466, 1482 (D.C. Cir. 1996); United States v.
            ______                                       _____________

            Canon,  66  F.3d 1073,  1076  n.1 (9th  Cir.  1995).   For   
            _____

            3582(c)(2) determinations, the guidelines dictate a different

            approach.  Section 1B1.10(b) instructs the court to "consider

            the sentence  that it would have imposed had the amendment(s)

            to the guidelines listed in subsection  (c) [i.e., those that

            have  been designated as  retroactive] been in  effect at the

            time  the  defendant was  sentenced."    And an  accompanying

            application note states:

                 In  determining the  amended guideline  range under
                 subsection (b), the court shall substitute only the
                                                            ____
                 amendments  listed   in  subsection  (c)   for  the
                 corresponding   guideline   provisions  that   were
                 applied  when  the defendant  was  sentenced.   All
                                                                 ___
                 otherguidelineapplicationdecisionsremainunaffected.
                 __________________________________________________

                                         -3-

            U.S.S.G.   1B1.10 n.2  (emphasis added).  In  accordance with

            these directions, the district court properly  refrained from

            applying amendment 487.

                 In the alternative, petitioner argues that amendment 487

            is a "clarifying" rather  than "substantive" amendment  which

            may properly  be invoked on  a retroactive basis,  whether in

            connection with a   3582(c)(2) resentencing or by way of a   

            2255  proceeding.  See,  e.g., Isabel  v. United  States, 980
                               ___   ____  ______     ______________

            F.2d  60,  62 (1st  Cir. 1992).    Yet courts  have uniformly

            characterized amendment  487 as  a substantive change.   See,
                                                                     ___

            e.g.,  United States v. Booker, 70 F.3d 488, 489-90 (7th Cir.
            ____   _____________    ______

            1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1334 (1996); United States v.
                   ____________                          _____________

            Kissick, 69  F.3d 1048, 1053 (10th Cir.  1995); United States
            _______                                         _____________

            v. Samuels,  59 F.3d 526, 529 (5th Cir. 1995).  We agree with
               _______

            that  assessment, especially  since  the amendment  conflicts

            with this court's  holding in United States v. Lopez-Gil, 965
                                          _____________    _________

            F.2d 1124,  1134-35 (1st Cir.) (on  rehearing), cert. denied,
                                                            ____________

            506 U.S. 981 (1992).  See, e.g., United States v. Rostoff, 53
                                  ___  ____  _____________    _______

            F.3d 398, 406  (1st Cir.  1995) (deeming an  amendment to  be

            substantive  when  it  is  at odds  with  prevailing  circuit

            precedent).  

                 Petitioner's further contention--that he  was improperly

            denied the right to a hearing--is misplaced.  "A   3582(c)(2)

            motion  is not  a  second opportunity  to present  mitigating

            factors to the sentencing judge, nor is it a challenge to the

                                         -4-

            appropriateness of the original  sentence."  United States v.
                                                         _____________

            Whitebird, 55  F.3d 1007,  1011 (5th Cir.  1995) (finding  no
            _________

            right to  counsel in connection  therewith).  A  reduction of

            sentence  thus  need  not  invariably  be  accompanied  by  a

            hearing.  See, e.g., United States v. Dimeo, 28 F.3d 240, 241
                      ___  ____  _____________    _____

            n.3 (1st Cir. 1994); see also United States v. De Los Santos-
                                 ________ _____________    ______________

            Himitola,  924  F.2d 380,  382-83  (1st Cir.  1991).   Having
            ________

            examined  the issues that  petitioner wished to  argue to the

            resentencing court, we find that each of them would have been

            unavailing.  

                 We have considered  the remaining arguments  advanced by

            petitioner on appeal and summarily  reject them as lacking in

            merit. 

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -5-