In United States v. Rodriguez, --- F.3d ---, No. 17-10233 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit addressed drug quantity findings in the context of proceedings under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) -- for reductions of sentence in light of amendments to the Sentencing
Guidelines.
The decision focuses on how the resentencing court should treat previously undisputed drug quantities from the original PSR. The Court clarified that, under United States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2017), drug quantities in a PSR, without an explicit
and specific drug quantity finding by the original sentencing
judge, are not binding in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.
Specifically: "Mercado-Moreno instructs that drug quantities alluded to in the
original sentencing are binding in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding
only if (1) the sentencing judge made a specific finding of
drug quantity or (2) the defendant admitted to a specific
quantity. Id. at 957. A sentencing judge’s generic adoption
of a PSR (or an adoption of its justifications) does not fall
into either category. We therefore decline, as Mercado-Moreno instructs, to transform statements of generic
adoption of a PSR into binding, specific determinations as to
particular drug quantities."
Becuase neither situation applied, the proper course was for the district
court to engage in supplemental fact-finding as to drug quantity to determine
whether the defendant was eligible for a sentence reduction
under § 3582(c)(2). The Court remanded for that purpose.
