Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-28-2007
USA v. Rivera
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3372
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Rivera" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 360.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/360
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-3372
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JAIME RIVERA,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 91-cr-00394-1)
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 10, 2007
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, RENDELL and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.
(Filed September 28, 2007)
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Before the Court is an appeal from an order by the District Court denying a motion
for a reduction of sentence. We will affirm the order. As we write for the benefit of the
parties alone, we include only those facts necessary for the disposition of this appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Rivera began serving a 292
month sentence in 1992 after being convicted by a jury of various drug charges. Two of
the counts of conviction stated that Rivera had distributed cocaine within 1,000 feet of a
middle school in Allentown, Pennsylvania. As provided by U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2, Rivera’s
sentence was enhanced two levels due to the proximity to those schools.
Rivera’s claim is brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which allows for the ex
post reduction of a sentence if it was based on a sentence range that is later lowered by
the Sentencing Commission. Rivera argues that Amendment 591 to the Sentencing
Guidelines—which clarifies that the school-proximity enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2)
should not be imposed based on uncharged relevant conduct, but only based on the crime
of conviction—would lower his applicable sentence range.
Here, the proximity to the two schools was clearly charged in two of the counts.
As the District Court found, it is “undisputed that Rivera was convicted of selling drugs in
a school zone.” The motion was properly denied and we will affirm the order of the
District Court.
2