Court Opinion

ID: 9910536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 20:01:06.262698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:09.176035
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14186    Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 12/15/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                 No. 22-14186
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       BENNIE C. RIVERA,
       a.k.a. Mario Quinones,
       a.k.a. Carlos Alberto Quinones,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-14186        Document: 24-1         Date Filed: 12/15/2023    Page: 2 of 5

       2                         Opinion of the Court                   22-14186

                      D.C. Docket No. 6:04-cr-00104-JA-LHP-2
                            ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Bennie C. Rivera, proceeding pro se, appeals the District
       Court’s order denying his motion for relief under the First Step
       Act. In response, the Government moves for summary aﬃr-
       mance and to stay the brieﬁng schedule.
                                     I. Background
              In 2009, Rivera was convicted of two oﬀenses: conspiracy
       to possess with intent to distribute heroin and possession with in-
       tent to distribute heroin. And because of a previous drug convic-
       tion, Rivera faced mandatory minimum sentences. 1 Thus, the
       District Court imposed concurrent twenty-year sentences. Rivera
       appealed that sentence, but we aﬃrmed. See United States v. Rive-
       ra, 365 F. App’x 200, 201 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
              In 2019, Rivera sought a reduction of his sentence under
       the First Step Act. But the District Court denied it, explaining
       that Rivera didn’t qualify for relief under the Act because he was
       not sentenced for a “covered oﬀense”—his oﬀense involved hero-
       in, not cocaine. Rivera moved for reconsideration but that was
       also denied.

       1 In 1994, Rivera pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with

       intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine.
USCA11 Case: 22-14186       Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 12/15/2023      Page: 3 of 5

       22-14186                Opinion of the Court                           3

              We saw Rivera’s appeal, which was met with the Govern-
       ment’s motion for summary aﬃrmance. We granted the Gov-
       ernment’s motion, citing the untimeliness of Rivera’s appeal and
       his ineligibility for First Step Act relief. See United States v. Rivera,
       824 F. App’x 598, 600 (11th Cir. 2020).
               In 2022, Rivera once again moved for a sentence reduction
       under the First Step Act. But the District Court denied it, citing
       its prior 2019 denial. That led to the current appeal.
                                II. Legal Argument
              Rivera’s argument is twofold. First, the District Court
       erred by denying his motion without a hearing on the merits.
       And second, the District Court abused its discretion by not adher-
       ing to a Supreme Court mandate.
              The Government responds by moving for summary aﬃr-
       mance. It argues that the law-of-the-case doctrine bars Rivera
       from relitigating this matter. It also argues he was not entitled to
       a hearing and is still not eligible for relief under the First Step Act.
                                  III. Discussion
             Summary disposition is proper where “the position of one
       of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can
       be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groen-
USCA11 Case: 22-14186          Document: 24-1          Date Filed: 12/15/2023           Page: 4 of 5

       4                           Opinion of the Court                         22-14186

       dyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).2
       Summary aﬃrmance is proper here.
              To begin, the law-of-the-case doctrine makes our decisions
       “bind[ing] [on] all subsequent proceedings in the same case.”
       United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 662, 668 (11th Cir. 2014) (quota-
       tions omitted). So, our ruling in Rivera, 824 F. App’x at 600, binds
       Rivera in challenging his eligibility under the First Step Act again
       because he appeals the same issue this Court already summarily
       aﬃrmed.
              Rivera is also not entitled to a hearing on this issue. This
       Court has explained that “the First Step Act does not require dis-
       trict courts to hold a hearing with the defendant present before
       ruling on a defendant’s motion for a reduced sentence.” See Unit-
       ed States v. Denson, 963 F.3d 1080, 1082 (11th Cir. 2020), abrogated in
       part on other grounds by Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389,
       2404 (2022); see also United States v. Files, 63 F.4th 920, 925 (11th
       Cir. 2023) (recognizing Denson’s non-abrogated holding that a de-
       fendant has no due process right to a hearing on a First Step Act
       motion).
               And as for Rivera’s claim that the District Court didn’t fol-
       low a Supreme Court mandate, we disagree. Rivera cites Concep-
       cion v. United States, which holds that sentencing courts may con-
       sider intervening changes of law or fact in adjudicating a First

       2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this

       Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed
       down prior to October 1, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 22-14186         Document: 24-1         Date Filed: 12/15/2023          Page: 5 of 5

       22-14186                   Opinion of the Court                                   5

       Step Act motion—so this must be the mandate to which Rivera
       refers. 142 S. Ct. at 2396. But no changes of law or fact have
       made Rivera eligible for relief under the Act. That is true because
       the First Step Act and the Fair Sentencing Act still only address the
       sentencing disparity between oﬀenses involving cocaine base and
       powder cocaine, not heroin. 3
             Indeed, there is no substantial question as to this case’s
       outcome, and the Government is correct as a matter of law.
       Thus, the summary aﬃrmance motion is GRANTED and the
       motion to stay the brieﬁng schedule is DENIED as moot.

       3 See First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222.