No. 19-5856

Amando Villarreal Heredia v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-09-06
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-3582 18-usc-3582c2 drug-quantity fed-r-crim-p-11 federal-criminal-procedure federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure guidelines-range modification-proceeding plea-agreement sentence-recalculation sentencing-guidelines sentencing-modification
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2019-10-11
Question Presented (AI Summary)

In a Modification Proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), may a district court make new findings of fact to recalculate drug-quantity beyond the high-end ceiling sentencing cliff of the agreed upon Guidelines range embedded in a written plea agreement pursuant to Fed.R. Crim. P. 11(e)(4)(B)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : QUESTION # 1: In a " Modification Proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C.. § 3582(c)(2)," as to a retroactively applicable amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, may a district court ; “make ' new findings of fact,’ to ' recalculate drugquantity '" beyond the " high-end ceiling ‘sentencing , cliff " of the agreed upon Guidelines range embedded in a written plea agreement pursuant to Fed.R. Crim. P.11(e)(4)(B) to which was accepted by the court at the original sentencing, as " the basis for it's sentence, " as opposed to the affirmatively rejected presentence report ? QUESTION # 2: Did the district court effectively transform a Modification . proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. N 3582(c){2) into a full re-sentencing proceeding " in violation of this Court's decisions in Dillon V. United States (2010), and Houghes V. United States (2018), when it made " newfindings of fact " to which aggrandized the " drug quantity " beyond the threshold of agreed upon Guidelines range in a written plea agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(B), to which was accepted by the sentencing court in the “ original sentencing " as the basis for it's sentence as opposed to the affrimatively rejected PSR, as now, in said modification proceeding, " making use " of said PSR to deny. relief ? o QUESTION # 3: Does Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 apply to a modification proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to which are " notfull resentencing proceedings ? " QUESTION # 4: Did the Government and the district court breach a plea ; agreement entered into by the parties pursuant to Fed.~ R. Crim P. 11(c)(1)(B) and the specific language therein as to a “ recommended Guidelines range “to which was accepted by the court in the original ‘sentencing as the specific basis for it's sentence as opposed to the PSR, only to “ make new findings,' and aggrandize the drugquantity not specified in the plain Language of such " during a" sentence modification proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 2? "* ; i

Docket Entries

2019-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
2019-09-18
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-08-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 7, 2019)

Attorneys

Amando Villarreal Heredia
Amando Villarreal Heredia — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent