United States v. Cruz-Arellane, No. 11-4126 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Tenth Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Tenth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
After Defendant Gilberto Cruz-Arellanes was sentenced for illegally reentering the country, the Sentencing Commission issued an amendment (Amendment 740) to the illegal reentry guideline. The amendment discusses when and under what conditions a district court might wish to depart downward due to a defendant’s cultural assimilation. Seeking the benefit of this new guidance, Defendant filed a motion for a sentence reduction. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in not applying the amended sentencing guidelines. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order and Defendant's sentence.
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSDecember 5, 2011 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GILBERTO CRUZ-ARELLANES, No. 11-4126 (D.C. Nos. 2:11-CV-00383-DB and 2:08-CR-00825-DB-1) (D. Utah) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before LUCERO, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. After Gilberto Cruz-Arellanes was sentenced for illegally reentering the country, the Sentencing Commission issued an amendment (Amendment 740) to the illegal reentry guideline. The amendment discusses when and under what conditions a district court might wish to depart downward due to a defendant s cultural assimilation. Seeking the benefit of this new guidance, Mr. CruzArellanes filed a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). * This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. The district court denied the motion, however, so Mr. Cruz-Arellanes now appeals. We may review a district court s decision to deny a § 3582(c)(2) motion only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Dorrough, 84 F.3d 1309, 1311 (10th Cir. 1996). And here we see none. Section 3582(c)(2) empowers a district court to modify a defendant s original sentence if it was based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission and if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. The applicable policy statement in this case is U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a). That statement provides that district courts may only reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (c). And the amendment Mr. CruzArellanes seeks to take advantage of, Amendment 740, is not listed in subsection (c). Accordingly, and as the district court recognized, it had no discretion to reduce the sentence in this case. See § 1B1.10(a)(2) ( A reduction in the defendant s term of imprisonment . . . is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if . . . [n]one of the amendments listed in subsection (c) is applicable to the defendant. ). Contrary to Mr. Cruz-Arellanes s suggestion, nothing in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), alters this conclusion. See Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691-93 (2010) (a district court s power under § 3582(c)(2) . . . depends in the first instance on the Commission s decision not just to amend the -2- Guidelines but to make the amendment retroactive . . . . the Commission s retroactivity determinations . . . are binding ). Neither does his suggestion that Amendment 740 should be read as a clarifying rather than substantive amendment. The status of an amendment as clarifying or substantive plays no role in determining whether a sentence can be modified in a proceeding under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Torres-Aquino, 334 F.3d 939, 941 (10th Cir. 2003). Mr. Cruz-Arellanes s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge -3-
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.
