Padilla-Diaz

United States v. Padilla-Diaz

Good Law
862 F.3d 856·2017 WL 2855089
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 5, 2017No. 15-30279, No. 15-30294, No. 15-30375California2,884 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fletcher, J.

Armando Padilla-Diaz, Jeffrey Heck-man, and Bernardo Contreras Guzman (“Defendants”) in these consolidated cases appeal the district courts’ denials of their motions for sentence reductions under United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) Amendment 782 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). Each defendant was denied a reduction based on an application of the Sentencing Commission’s Policy Statement §. lB1.10(b)(2)(A), which prohibits courts from reducing a defendant’s “term of imprisonment” to “less than the minimum of the amended guideline range,” absent circumstances not present here. All three defendants contend that § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) is invalid because it conflicts with 28 U.S.C. § 991 (b) and violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Defendants Padilla-Diaz and Heckman, who entered their pleas before the current version of § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) was promulgated, further contend that the retroactive application of § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) violates their right to due process. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I. Statutory Overview

Congress has given the Sentencing Commission broad authority, set forth in 28 U.S.C.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.