Opinion
Criminal Case No. 10-cr-00392-CMA
2013-09-23
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE LUIS PUENTES SANCHEZ, a/k/a "Jose Luis Sanchez Puentes," a/k/a "Luis Sanchez Puentes," a/k/a "Luis Puentes," Defendant.
Judge Christine M. Arguello
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
MODIFICATION/REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT
TO THE FAST TRACK DIRECTIVE AND 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Jose Luis Puentes Sanchez's "Motion for the Modification/Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to the Fast Tract [sic] Directive and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)" (Doc. # 140), filed on January 18, 2013. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Defendant's motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant pleaded guilty to (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine; (2) attempt to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, and aiding and abetting the same; and (3) illegal reentry after conviction for an aggravated felony. (Doc. # 135 at 1.) On February 2, 2011, the Government filed a "Motion Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(e) and for Downward Departure Pursuant to U.S.S.G. Section 5K.1.1" (Doc. # 112), requesting that the Court impose a sentence of fifty-two months, which was below the minimum mandatory sentence of five years, due to Defendant's substantial assistance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and § 5K1.1. Adopting the Government's recommendation, the Court sentenced Defendant on February 25, 2011, to fifty-two months' imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. (Doc. # 135.)
In the instant motion, Defendant moves for reduction of his sentence based on 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the fast track directive. (Doc. # 140.) The Government responded to Defendant's Motion on January 31, 2013. (Doc. # 143.)
The Department of Justice and the United States Attorneys' Offices developed the fast-tracks program "as a matter of prosecutorial discretion to handle increasingly large numbers of criminal immigration cases." Memorandum from James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General, to all United States Attorneys 1 (Jan. 31, 2012), available at http://www.justice.gov/dag/fast-track-program.pdf.
II. ANALYSIS
Section 3582(c)(2) provides that a court may reduce the sentence of a defendant if the "sentencing range . . . has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission." Additionally, a sentence reduction is proper "if [it] is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). According to the Supreme Court, sentence reductions "must be consistent with the applicable policy statements" from the Sentencing Commission. Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2688 (2010)(emphasis added).
The Court engages in a two-step process for sentence reductions. See id. at 2691-92. First, the Court must follow the Sentencing Commission's "instructions in [U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.10 to determine the prisoner's eligibility for a sentence modification and the extent of the reduction authorized." See id. at 2691. In making this determination, the Court "shall substitute only the amendments listed in [§ 1B1.10] subsection(c) for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected." See id. (emphasis added). The Court generally may not reduce a term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2) to one "that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range produced by the substitution." See id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). Second, under § 3582(c)(2), the Court considers whether any § 3553(a) factors apply and "whether, in [the Court's] discretion, the reduction authorized by reference to the policies relevant at step one is warranted in whole or in part" given the circumstances of the case. See id. at 2692.
In the instant case, Defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction because the Sentencing Commission has not made the fast-track program an amendment to § 1B1.10(c) that may be applied retroactively. The fast-track program is an "internal Department of Justice policy that allows for early disposition, in the discretion of the U.S. Attorney, for certain defendants who have committed particular crimes." United States v. Soltero-Corona, No. 5:99-cr-50038, 2013 WL 4046355, at *1 (W.D. Ark. May 22, 2013) (unpublished); see also United States v. Hernandez-Cornejo, 507 Fed. App'x 765 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (referring to fast tracks as an early disposition program); United States v. Seldon-Lopez, No. 2:09-cr-0246-RLH-RJJ, 2012 WL 1744535, at *1 (D. Nev. May 15, 2012) (unpublished) (noting that the fast-track policy does "not create any substantive or procedural rights for Defendant"). As such, the fast-track program cannot serve as a basis for retroactively reducing Defendant's sentence.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's "Motion for the Modification/Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to the Fast Tract [sic] Directive and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)" (Doc. # 140) is DENIED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Government's "Motion for Leave to Restrict" (Doc. # 141) is GRANTED.
BY THE COURT:
_______________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge