Case: 15-15359 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 1 of 12
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15359
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cr-10020-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN GONZALEZ CASTANEDA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 16, 2017)
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-15359 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 2 of 12
Juan Castaneda, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to reduce his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The question whether Castaneda is
eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) depends on the district court’s
basis for applying a two-level reduction to Castaneda’s offense level at his original
sentencing.
If the basis for the reduction was a downward variance, as the government
asserts on appeal, Castaneda is not eligible for a sentence reduction because
variances are not considered when determining a defendant’s eligibility for
§ 3582(c)(2) relief. But if, as hinted at by the sentencing transcript, the court
applied a two-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(16) (2011), Castaneda is
eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief because that reduction must be applied when
calculating his amended guideline range under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, and including
that reduction has the effect, in conjunction with Amendment 782, of lowering his
applicable guideline range.
Because the record is unclear as to the basis for the two-level reduction, and
the district court did not address the issue in denying Castaneda’s § 3582(c)(2)
motion, we remand this case to the district court to resolve that question and, if
appropriate, reduce Castaneda’s sentence.
I.
2
Case: 15-15359 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 3 of 12
In January 2012, Castaneda pled guilty to conspiracy to possess five
kilograms or more of cocaine with intent to distribute while aboard a vessel subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503 and
70506. Along with the plea agreement, he executed a factual proffer stating that
the amount of cocaine involved was 401 kilograms and that he was the captain of
the vessel.
Castaneda’s plea hearing and sentencing were conducted as part of a single
proceeding. In other words, the district court sentenced Castaneda immediately
after accepting his guilty plea. The parties waived the preparation of a complete
presentence investigation report (“PSR”), and the court arranged prior to the
change-of-plea and sentencing proceeding to have an “abbreviated” PSR prepared.
Using the 2011 Guidelines Manual, Castaneda’s PSR calculated a guideline
range of 210 to 262 months of imprisonment based on a total offense level of 37
and a criminal history category of I. Castaneda started with a base offense level of
38 because the offense involved over 150 kilograms of cocaine. U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(a)(5) & (c)(1) (2011). Two levels were added because he was the captain
of a drug-trafficking vessel, see id. §2D1.1(b)(3)(C), and three levels were
deducted for acceptance of responsibility, see id. § 3E1.1(a), (b).
Although the PSR calculated a total offense level of 37, the district court
sentenced Castaneda using a total offense level of 35 and a corresponding
3
Case: 15-15359 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 4 of 12
guideline range of 168 to 210 months of imprisonment. For reasons explained
below, Castaneda’s current eligibility for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction
depends on the basis for that two-level reduction, but the record is obscure on the
matter. The closest the transcript of sentencing comes to providing an answer is
the following exchange among the court, the probation officer, and counsel for
both parties:
The Court: Okay. Now, in the case of Mr. Cast[a]neda the probation
officer calculated the offense level of thirty-five from this category
one the guideline Federal range of 210 months. Is that correct?
Castaneda’s Counsel: Yes, your Honor.
Government: Yes, your honor.
....
Probation Officer: Your honor, I don't want to interrupt, but we
calculated an offense level at thirty-seven.
The Court: In the case of?
Probation Officer: Mr. Cast[a]neda.
The Court: Okay. Well, I thought that had been corrected. That is
why I mentioned thirty-five.
Government: The parties have agreed that 521.2 [sic] is applicable
there, therefore, 2D1.1 gives him an additional --
Probation Officer: I was not aware of that, your honor.
The Court: All right. Okay. So, we’re all in agreement on that. . . .
4
Case: 15-15359 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 5 of 12
After the district court confirmed that the parties and the court “agree[d] on a
guideline calculation,” Castaneda’s counsel requested a “sentence at the low end of
the guidelines which is 168 months.” The court sentenced Castaneda to 168
months of imprisonment.
The discussion excerpted above is far from clear. But it does hint at the
basis for the court’s decision to sentence Castaneda at level 35 instead of level 37.
Notably, when the probation officer raised the issue that the PSR calculated a total
offense level of 37, the government offered the following as an apparent
explanation for the two-level reduction: “The parties have agreed that 521.2 [sic]
is applicable there, therefore, 2D1.1 gives him an additional --” There is no
§ 521.2 in the Guidelines Manual, of course, but there is a § 5C1.2, and,
significantly, that section works together with § 2D1.1 to allow for a two-level
reduction. Specifically, § 2D1.1(b)(16) (2011) 1 provides for a two-level reduction
if a defendant meets the five “safety valve” criteria set forth in § 5C1.2. So, the
government’s explanation at sentencing, with some limited additions and
alterations, could reasonably be interpreted as follows: “The parties have agreed
that § 5C1.2 is applicable here; therefore, § 2D1.1(b)(16) gives him an additional
reduction of two levels.”
1
This same provision is at § 2D1.1(b)(17) in the 2016 Guidelines Manual. All references
to “2D1.1(b)(16)” are to the 2011 Guidelines Manual, which is the version of the manual in
effect at the time of Castaneda’s sentencing.
5
Case: 15-15359 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 6 of 12
Castaneda’s PSR was never amended to reflect the apparent change to his
offense level and guideline range, however, nor was the basis of the two-level
reduction otherwise memorialized in the record. So when Castaneda filed a motion
to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to
the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced by two levels the base offense levels for
most drug-trafficking crimes, the government responded that it was unable to
determine the basis for the court’s decision to sentence Castaneda at level 35
instead of level 37.2 And because it could not determine the basis for that decision,
the government did not incorporate the two-level reduction when calculating
Castaneda’s amended guideline range under Amendment 782.
Using the guideline calculations reflected in the PSR, the government
reasoned that Amendment 782 would not have the effect of reducing Castaneda’s
guideline range: “If Amendment 782 is applied, the defendant would begin at
level 36 instead of 38 under 2D1.1, plus two for being the vessel’s captain (38),
minus 3 for timely acceptance, for a total offense level of 35 – which is where he is
now.” With no change to his guideline range, the government said it could not
“see how the court ha[d] jurisdiction” to reduce Castaneda’s sentence, even though
it acknowledged that the range produced by an additional two-level reduction (135
to 168 months) was “a reasonable sentencing range” for Castaneda.
2
The attorney who prepared the government’s response stated that he was not involved in
Castaneda’s sentencing, so he had no first-hand knowledge of the basis for the reduction.
6
Case: 15-15359 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 7 of 12
The district court denied Castaneda’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. The court’s
order, like the government’s response, relies on the PSR’s guideline calculations
and does not address or incorporate the largely unexplained two-level reduction:
According to his PSI Report, the defendant’s initial guideline range
was based on drug quantity, producing a base offense level of 38.
After adding two levels for being the vessel’s captain, and subtracting
three for timely acceptance of responsibility, Castaneda was left with
a total offense level of 37, with a sentencing range of 210 to 262
months. If Amendment 782 is applied, Castaneda would begin at
level 36, plus two for being the vessel’s captain, minus three for
timely acceptance, for a total offense level of 35. An additional
reduction of two levels, to 33, would give Castaneda a sentencing
range of 135 to 168 months. Such a range, however, is below the
now-amended range. This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to reduce
Castaneda’s sentence. Accordingly, the Motion to Reduce Sentence
(ECF No. 202) is denied.
Castaneda now appeals the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions as to the scope of its
authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254,
1256 (11th Cir. 2009).
A district court may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the
defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that has since been lowered
by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Section § 3582(c)(2)
“gives the defendant an opportunity to receive the same sentence he would have
received if the guidelines that applied at the time of his sentencing had been the
7
Case: 15-15359 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 8 of 12
same as the guidelines that applied after the amendment.” United States v. Glover,
686 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012). Any reduction, however, must be consistent
with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
In considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, a district court must engage in a two-
part analysis. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000); see also
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010). At the first step, the court
determines whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. Then, “[i]f a
prisoner is eligible, the district court engages in the second step: it exercises its
discretion to decide whether, in consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, to reduce
the sentence and, if so, by how much within the authorized range.” United States
v. Gonzalez-Murillo, 852 F.3d 1329, 1335 (11th Cir. 2017). This appeal concerns
the first step only.
To be eligible for a sentence reduction, the defendant must show that a
retroactive amendment has “the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable
guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1)–(2). To make that determination, the
court must calculate the guideline range that would have applied if the amendment
had been in effect at the time of sentencing. U.S.S.C. § 1B.10(b)(1). The court
must substitute only the amended guideline for the one originally used, leaving “all
other guideline application decisions unaffected.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1); see
United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 1998).
8
Case: 15-15359 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 9 of 12
The commentary to § 1B1.10, by which we are bound, provides further
guidance on calculating a defendant’s “applicable guideline range.” Gonzalez-
Murillo, 852 F.3d at 1336. It explains that the term “applicable guideline range”
means “the guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and criminal
history category determined pursuant to § 1B1.1(a), which is determined before
consideration of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any
variance.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A). Based on this definition, we have
stated that courts must apply “all eight steps of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1(a) in order to
determine the amended guideline range under § 1B1.10(a)(1).” Gonzalez-Murillo,
852 F.3d at 1336. Departures or variances are excluded from the calculation of the
amended guideline range. See id.
Here, there is no dispute that Amendment 782 is a retroactive amendment
which, based on a drug quantity of 401 kilograms of cocaine, reduced Castaneda’s
base offense level from 38 to 36. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2011), with
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2) (2016). And to calculate his amended guideline range, the
district court, as it did below, must continue to apply the two-level “captain”
enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(3)(C), and the three-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility, id. § 3E1.1. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1).
What is less clear is whether the district court must continue to apply the
unexplained two-level reduction that was applied at Castaneda’s original
9
Case: 15-15359 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 10 of 12
sentencing—reducing his total offense level from 37 to 35—when determining the
amended guideline range under Amendment 782. While the court must do so if the
reduction, which was not reflected in the PSR, was applied in determining “the
offense level . . . pursuant to § 1B1.1(a),” the reduction would properly have been
excluded from the calculation of the amended guideline range if, as the
government asserts, the district court applied a discretionary “two-level downward
variance” not based on any provision in the Sentencing Guidelines. See Gonzalez-
Murillo, 852 F.3d at 1336; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A).
If the government is correct that the two-level reduction was a variance from
the guideline range calculated in the PSR, Castaneda would not be eligible for a
sentence reduction because the applicable guideline range “is determined before
consideration of . . . any variance.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A). Before the
variance, Castaneda’s original total offense level would have been 37, with a
corresponding guideline range of 210 to 262 months. Amendment 782 would have
the effect of lowering his total offense level to 35, reducing his guideline range to
168 to 210 months. Because that is the same range used at his original sentencing
hearing, a sentence reduction would not be authorized because Amendment 782,
despite lowering his base offense level, “would not alter the sentencing range upon
which his . . . sentence was based.” United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330
(11th Cir. 2008).
10
Case: 15-15359 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 11 of 12
But if instead of a variance the court applied a two-level reduction based on
a provision in § 2D1.1, Castaneda would be eligible for a sentence reduction. As
noted above, the sentencing transcript indicates that the parties and the court
agreed on the application of a two-level reduction, which was not reflected in the
PSR, based on both “521.2” and “2D1.1.” We think the most likely possibility is
that the parties and the court agreed that Castaneda’s offense level should be
reduced by two levels under § 2D1.1(b)(16) because he met the five criteria under
§ 5C1.2. As a “specific offense characteristic,” § 2D1.1(b)(16) affects the offense
level and guideline range “determined pursuant to § 1B1.1(a).” See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.1(a)(2). Therefore, if the court applied § 2D1.1(b)(16) at Castaneda’s
original sentencing, it must continue to apply that section when resolving his
§ 3582(c)(2) motion.
Whether § 2D1.1(b)(16) (2011) was in fact applied at Castaneda’s original
sentencing is not for us to decide, however. The district court did not resolve this
issue in its order denying Castaneda’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, and the record is not so
clear that we can determine with certainty the basis for the two-level reduction.
Accordingly, we remand to the district court to make a factual finding as to the
basis for the two-level reduction. See Gonzalez-Murillo, 852 F.3d at 1339–40
(remanding for a factual finding necessary to determine a defendant eligibility for
§ 3582(c)(2) relief); United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 340–41 (11th Cir.
11
Case: 15-15359 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 12 of 12
2013) (same). Should the court determine that the reduction was a two-level
downward variance, as the government asserts on appeal, Castaneda is not eligible
for a sentence reduction. Alternatively, should the court determine that the two-
level reduction was under § 2D1.1(b)(16), or another provision in § 2D1.1,
Castaneda is eligible for a sentence reduction, and the court should proceed to the
second step and exercise its discretion to grant or deny relief based on the amended
guideline range, the § 3553(a) factors, and all applicable policy statements from
the Sentencing Commission.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
12