In United States v. Mercado-Moreno, --- F.3d ---, No. 15-10545 (9th Cir. 2017), the Court undertakes a lengthy analysis of the proper procedures for resentencing proceedings under 3582(c)(2). The opinion is full of new rules. None of them help the defendant in this case, as the Court affirms the denial of his motion for a sentencing reduction.
In a nutshell, when the Guidelines change such that a defendant is eligible for a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2): "a district court may
supplement the original sentencing court’s quantity findings
only when supplemental findings are necessary to determine
the defendant’s eligibility for a sentence reduction in light of
a retroactive Guidelines amendment. However, the district
court may not make supplemental findings that are
inconsistent with the findings made by the original
sentencing court. We also hold that a district court has broad
discretion in how to adjudicate § 3582(c)(2) proceedings,
including whether to hold a hearing when making
supplemental findings of drug quantity."
While this does not sound all that bad, in practice, it means that if, at the original sentencing, the court found the defendant responsible for "more than" or "at least" X amount of drugs, the court can then supplement those findings at the resentencing to find the defendant responsible for more drugs. And based on that finding, it can deny the motion for a sentencing reduction.
So the next time you file a motion under 3582, read this case first. Also, if you have a situation where you can get a favorable finding on specific drug quantity, you might want to ask the district court to make it on the record. That way, at any resentencing, a new judge cannot go above the previously found amount.
Finally, for all us appellate people, here is line we are sure to see cited by the government: "In reviewing for abuse of discretion, we may affirm the 'district court on any ground supported by the record, even
if the district court’s reasoning differs from our own.'"
