Sanchez-Beltran v. United States of Amercia

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/31/2015. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

LUCIO SANCHEZ-BELTRAN,

14

Petitioner,

15
16

v.

Case Nos. 07-CV-02098-JF (LHK)
99-CR-20106-LHK-2
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

17

Respondent.

18
19

Before the Court is Petitioner Lucio Sanchez-Beltran’s (“Petitioner”) motion for

20

reconsideration of his motion to compel the government to move for a sentence reduction under

21

Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. ECF No. 2361 (“Mot.”). The Court

22

denied Petitioner’s motion to compel on July 22, 2015. ECF No. 230 (“Order”).

23

Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) states: “Before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the

24

claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a motion before

25

a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any

26

interlocutory order . . . . No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining

27
28

1

All ECF citations refer to No. 99-CR-20106-LHK-2 unless specified otherwise.
1

Case Nos. 07-CV-02098-JF(LHK); 99-CR-20106-LHK-2
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

leave of Court to file the motion.” Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) then provides three grounds for

2

reconsideration:
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law
exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory
order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the
exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not
know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

3
4
5

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time
of such order; or

6
7
8

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal
arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

9

Whether to grant leave to file under Civil Local Rule 7-9 is committed to the Court’s sound
discretion. See Montebueno Mktg., Inc. v. Del Monte Corp.-USA, 570 F. App’x 675, 676 (9th Cir.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

2014).

12

Liberally construing Petitioner’s pro se motion, the Court concludes that Petitioner has

13

failed to make a showing that any of the three grounds for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule

14

7-9(b) has been satisfied. In denying Petitioner’s motion to compel the government to move for a

15

sentence reduction under Rule 35(b), the Court explained that Rule 35(b) permits courts, upon a

16

motion from the government, to reduce a defendant’s sentence based on substantial assistance

17

provided after sentencing. See Order at 4 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)). As all of Petitioner’s

18

alleged cooperation with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration occurred before his

19

sentencing in 2005, there was “no basis for the government to move under Rule 35(b), let alone

20

for the Court to compel the government to do so.” Id.

21

The Court also rejected Petitioner’s claim that the government’s decision at Petitioner’s

22

sentencing hearing to defer consideration of Petitioner’s alleged pretrial assistance constituted bad

23

faith and violated Petitioner’s due process rights. Order at 6-7. At bottom, Petitioner asks the

24

Court to reconsider this ruling. Specifically, Petitioner requests that the Court “review the

25

government’s conduct during sentencing”—namely, whether the government violated Petitioner’s

26

due process rights by “urging the district court . . . to defer evaluation of [Petitioner’s] presentence

27

substantial assistance to be revisited through a Rule 35(b) motion at a later date.” Mot. at 2-5. As

28

2
Case Nos. 07-CV-02098-JF(LHK); 99-CR-20106-LHK-2
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

the Court explained in its Order, however, the Ninth Circuit already addressed this claim on direct

2

appeal:

3
4
5
6
7
8

Sanchez also argues that the district court erred in deferring consideration of his
rendering of substantial assistance. The record reveals, however, that the court did
account for Sanchez’s assistance when it considered the sentencing range under the
advisory Guidelines. In imposing a sentence in the middle of the advisory
Guidelines range, the court noted that “but for [Sanchez’s] assistance to date this
would be a high end case.” Further, the district court’s ability to depart downward
for substantial assistance was curtailed by the government’s failure to move for
such a departure, and Sanchez does not allege any arbitrariness or unconstitutional
motivation on the part of the government in failing to so move.
Order at 6 (quoting United States v. Sanchez-Beltran, 213 F. App’x 548, 552 (9th Cir. 2006)). As

10

this Court previously held, Petitioner has made no showing that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling was in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

error. See id. at 6-7. Petitioner has not cited to any portion of the record to support his allegation

12

that the government ever promised to make a Rule 35(b) motion. Rather, the record shows only

13

that the government indicated at sentencing that Petitioner’s case “may very well be the kind of

14

case that results in a Rule 35(b) sentencing reduction down the road,” Sentencing Tr. at 19-20, and

15

that the sentencing judge stated he would “not hesitate to entertain a motion under Rule 35(b), if

16

the circumstances warrant,” id. at 39. Petitioner, thus, has failed to provide any evidence beyond

17

“generalized allegations of improper motive” establishing that the government’s refusal to move

18

under Rule 35(b) is based on anything other than “its rational assessment of the cost and benefit

19

that would flow from moving.” Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 186-87 (1992).

20

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of his motion

21

to compel the government to move under Rule 35(b).

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25
26

Dated: August 31, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

27
28

3
Case Nos. 07-CV-02098-JF(LHK); 99-CR-20106-LHK-2
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION