United States v. Trujillo, No. 11-50353 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted in 1993 of conspiracy to possess and of possessing with intent to distribute 2,915 kilograms of cocaine and was sentenced to 360 months imprisonment. The Sentencing Commission subsequently amended the Sentencing Guidelines to lower the offense level applicable to defendant, with an application note indicating that upward departures from the new level might be warranted in cases involving an excessive quantity of drugs. Defendant subsequently moved under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for a reduction of his sentence. The court held that section 3582(c) contained no jurisdictional bar for the district court to entertain a second motion. Any non-jurisdictional challenges to a second motion were waived by the government when it failed to object. The court also concluded that the district court erred in failing to explain at all its rejection of defendant's arguments based on 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings. The court rejected defendant's contention that the upward departure under the amended Guideline's application note violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated the district court’s order denying a second motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for reduction of a sentence imposed following the defendant’s 1993 conviction of conspiracy to possess and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine. The panel held that 18 U.S.C. § 3582 contains no jurisdictional bar to the district court’s entertaining a second motion under § 3582(c)(2), and that any non-jurisdictional challenges to the second motion were waived by the government when it failed to object. The panel held that the district court erred in failing to explain at all its rejection of the defendant’s arguments based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The panel held that an upward departure permitted in an application note to amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.