Arredondo-Quevedo v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for resentencing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, where the parties agreed that the defendant's prior convictions were incorrectly included in his criminal history calculation. The court granted the petition, vacated the sentence, and ordered a resentencing hearing based on the corrected Guidelines range.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Resentencing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 granted“Petitioner’s Petition for Resentencing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is GRANTED (DKt. 29);” | agree with court The court correctly applied the plain error standard as articulated in Molina-Martinez. The record establishes that the sentencing court used an incorrect Guidelines range (Category 6, 130-162 months) instead of the correct range (Category 4, 46-57 months). Because the imposed sentence of 96 months was nearly double the high end of the correct range, the error was material and affected substantial rights. The parties' agreement on the factual basis for the error further supports the grant. |
Sentence vacated“Petitioner's sentence is VACATED. However, all terms and provisions of the original judgment remain in effect;” | agree with court Vacating the sentence is the standard remedy when a § 2255 petition is granted on the basis of a sentencing error that requires recalculation. The court properly preserved the rest of the judgment. |
Resentencing hearing ordered“A resentencing hearing will be set for January 27, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. before the undersigned.” | agree with court Ordering a new sentencing hearing is the appropriate procedural step to allow the court to impose a sentence within the correct Guidelines range. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the legal error (incorrect criminal history calculation), cites the controlling Supreme Court precedent (Molina-Martinez) for the standard of review regarding Guidelines errors, and applies the facts (concurrent sentences ending in 2000) to the specific Guideline provision (§ 4A1.2(e)(1)). The conclusion that the error was material is supported by the significant disparity between the imposed sentence and the correct range.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JUAN CARLOS ARREDONDO- CASE NOS. 18cr2292-LAB 11 QUEVEDO, 19cv1609-LAB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR 13 vs. RESENTENCING [Dkt. 29]
14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
15 Respondent.
16 Juan Carlos Arredondo-Quevedo has filed a timely Petition for Resentencing under 17 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Arredondo-Quevedo argues, and the United States agrees, that the 18 96-month sentence imposed by this Court in 2018 was plain error because the 19 Sentencing Guidelines range used by the Court was based on three California convictions 20 from the 1990s that should not have “scored.” Because Arredondo-Quevedo’s period of 21 incarceration for those offenses ran concurrently and ended in 2000, these convictions 22 did not “result[ ] in the defendant being incarcerated during any part of [the] fifteen-year 23 period” preceding his April 25, 2018 arrest for his current offense, violation of 8 U.S.C. 24 § 1326. See Sentencing Guidelines § 4A1.2(e)(1). 25 The Court agrees with the parties that these convictions should not have “scored” 26 for purposes of determining Arredondo-Quevedo’s Guidelines range. It also agrees that 27 the failure to accurately calculate the Guidelines range affected the sentence the Court 28 ultimately imposed. See Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1345 (2016) 1 || (‘When a defendant is sentenced under an incorrect Guidelines range—whether or not 2 || the defendant's ultimate sentence falls within the correct range—the error itself can, and 3 || most often will, be sufficient to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome 4 || absent the error.”). Petitioner's original Presentence Report placed him in Criminal 5 || History Category Six and gave him 27 points under the Guidelines, which resulted in a 6 || sentencing range of 130 to 162 months. The parties agree that Petitioner should have 7 || instead been placed in Criminal History Category Four and received only 19 points under 8 || the Guidelines, which would result in a significantly lower range of 46 to 57 months. 9 || Because Petitioner's 96-month sentence is nearly double the high end of this range, the 10 || Court concludes that the error was material and that Arredondo-Quevedo should be 11 || resentenced using the correct Guidelines range. 49 kee 13 Because the Court finds that Arredondo-Quevedo’s sentence was calculated in 14 || error, itis ORDERED that: 15 1. Petitioner’s Petition for Resentencing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is GRANTED (DKt. 16 29); 17 || 2. Petitioner's sentence is VACATED. However, all terms and provisions of the 18 original judgment remain in effect; 19 || 3. The United States Probation Office shall file a copy of the original Presentence 20 Report and a supplement to the Presentence Report advising the Court of any 21 relevant information pertaining to Petitioner’s time in custody and including a 22 sentencing recommendation in accordance with this Order by January 3, 2020; 23 and 24 || 4. A resentencing hearing will be set for January 27, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. before the 25 undersigned. Should the parties wish to file memoranda pertaining to the 26 resentencing, they must do so on or before January 7, 2020. | ated: December 10, 2019 (sie A Vw 28 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS Chief United States District Judge