United States v. Enrique Ramirez ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                 United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 19-1613
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Enrique Ramirez
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
    ____________
    Submitted: April 14, 2020
    Filed: June 1, 2020
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BENTON and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Enrique Ramirez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine
    and was sentenced to 180 months in prison, 12 months above the bottom of his
    Guidelines range of 168–210 months. While he was still serving that sentence,
    Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered Ramirez’s recommended range to
    140–175 months. Ramirez moved for a sentencing modification under18 U.S.C.
    § 3582(c)(2), and the probation office submitted an eligibility report listing “three
    conduct violations for assaultive behavior.” The district court1 reduced his sentence
    to 157 months, based in part on his “continued assaultive behavior while in custody.”
    Ramirez moved for reconsideration, requesting a sentence of 152 months—12 months
    above the bottom of his new range—to match his original sentence, but the district
    court denied that motion.
    Ramirez appeals and argues that the district court erred in denying his motion
    for reconsideration without affording him a hearing to contest factual allegations in
    the report. He also argues the court should have provided him with a hearing to
    present mitigating evidence in support of his requested sentence.
    Sentencing modification is discretionary with the district court. United States
    v. Coohey, 
    11 F.3d 97
    , 101 (8th Cir. 1993). It may be appropriate when a defendant
    “was sentenced based on a guideline range subsequently lowered by the Sentencing
    Commission.” United States v. Whiting, 
    522 F.3d 845
    , 852 (8th Cir. 2008).
    Sentencing modifications are not resentencings, and district courts have “considerable
    leeway” in crafting procedures for evaluating § 3582(c)(2) motions. United States
    v. Foster, 
    575 F.3d 861
    , 862 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation omitted). We review
    the procedures used to adjudicate such motions and the decision to grant a reduction
    for an abuse of discretion.
    Id. at 863.
    We review constitutional challenges de novo.
    United States v. Johnson, 
    703 F.3d 464
    , 466–67 (8th Cir. 2013).
    Ramirez asserts that he had a constitutional due process right to a hearing to
    dispute the eligibility report and present mitigating evidence. No defendant is entitled
    to a sentencing reduction, so due process requirements are generally not implicated
    1
    The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    -2-
    because “[n]o new deprivation of liberty can be visited upon him by a proceeding
    that, at worst, leaves his term of imprisonment unchanged.”
    Id. at 470–71.
    But we
    have recognized that a defendant requesting a reduction has the right to “be apprised
    of information on which the court will rest its decision,” 
    Foster, 575 F.3d at 863
    , and
    the Guidelines require district courts to provide “an adequate opportunity to present
    information to the court regarding” “any factor important to [its] sentencing
    determination [that] is reasonably in dispute.” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a); see United States
    v. Neal, 
    611 F.3d 399
    , 402 (7th Cir. 2010) (section 6A1.3(a) applies in proceedings
    under § 3582(c)(2)).
    Ramirez was afforded all the process he was due under Foster and the
    Guidelines. He had the opportunity to present mitigating evidence in writing but did
    not avail himself of that opportunity. He referred to his “post-conviction
    rehabilitation efforts” in his motion for a reduced sentence, but did not offer specifics
    or submit any evidence of such efforts. As for the argument that he should have been
    given the opportunity to contest the allegations in the eligibility report, nothing in
    § 6A1.3(a) requires a hearing, merely “an adequate opportunity to present
    information.” Even then, that requirement is only triggered after a defendant puts a
    factor “reasonably in dispute.” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a).
    At the time he moved for reconsideration, Ramirez knew the district court’s
    decision to sentence him 17 months above the bottom of his new Guidelines range
    rested on prison conduct violations described in the report.2 He was the subject of the
    2
    In reply, Ramirez appears to contest whether he was given the report before
    the district court made its initial modification decision and also claims he was never
    given the sources underlying the report. As to the first claim, there is no dispute that
    he had the report at the time he requested reconsideration. As to the second, Foster
    only required defendants “be apprised of information on which the court will rest its
    decision,” not the sources underlying the information given to the 
    court. 575 F.3d at 863
    .
    -3-
    report; his prison disciplinary history was well known to him. See 
    Neal, 611 F.3d at 401
    (“[I]t was his history; who knew it better?”). If he had specific objections, he was
    well positioned to present them in his motion for reconsideration. Without specific
    objections, he has not put any factor “reasonably in dispute” and cannot show that a
    hearing was required. See U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a). The district court properly
    considered his post-conviction conduct described in the report. See United States v.
    Jones, 
    836 F.3d 896
    , 899 (8th Cir. 2016).
    Ramirez failed to carry his burden to show a greater § 3582(c)(2) reduction was
    warranted.
    Id. The district
    court provided him with an adequate opportunity to be
    heard, and it did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration. We affirm.
    ______________________________
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-1613

Filed Date: 6/1/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/1/2020