USA v. Juan Paulino



Download PDF
Case: 17-1035 Document: 003112550367 Page: 1 ALD-137 Date Filed: 02/28/2017 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-1035 ___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JUAN PAULINO, Appellant ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Criminal No. 2-15-cr-00191-001) District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 February 16, 2017 Before: MCKEE, JORDAN and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 28, 2017) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM Juan Paulino, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Case: 17-1035 Document: 003112550367 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2017 § 3582(c)(2). We will summarily affirm. I. On April 23, 2015, Paulino pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to one count of illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (illegal reentry where the prior “removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony”). On November 12, 2015, the District Court sentenced him to a term of fifty-seven months’ imprisonment in accordance with the United States Sentencing Guidelines in effect at that time. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.11(a); 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (amended 2016). Paulino did not pursue a direct appeal. Approximately one year later, he filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 802 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the level of enhancements for an alien like Paulino who has been convicted of illegal reentry after having been previously removed for his criminal conduct. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual app. C, amend. 802, at 155-56 (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2016). The District Court denied the motion. Paulino timely appealed. II. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of the District Court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines and review the denial of Paulino’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 (3d Cir. 2009). 2 Case: 17-1035 Document: 003112550367 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/28/2017 III. We will summarily affirm the District Court’s order because no substantial question is presented by this appeal. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. “While district courts are generally prohibited from ‘modify[ing] a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed,’ a defendant may be eligible for a reduction of sentence if the sentence was ‘based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission’ and if ‘a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.’” United States v. Flemming, 723 F.3d 407, 410 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). The relevant policy statement, in turn, permits a reduction only if the Sentencing Commission has made the amendment retroactive in § 1B1.10(d). United States v. Thompson, 70 F.3d 279, 281 (3d Cir. 1995) (stating that an amendment cannot be applied retroactively if it is not listed in former § 1B1.10(c), now § 1B1.10(d)). Because Amendment 802 is not listed in § 1B1.10(d), the District Court correctly concluded that it was not permitted to modify Paulino’s sentence. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?