United States v. Rendon, No. 19-2515 (8th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction, holding that the district court erred in relying on a drug-quantity figure that did not match what was attributed to defendant at sentencing. In this case, defendant seeks to take advantage of Amendment 782, which retroactively lowered the base offense levels for most drug-quantity offenses. The district court assumed that the correct drug amount was 136.08 kilograms and denied the motion. However, the district court had already rejected this figure earlier at defendant's original sentencing. Therefore, the amount the district court used was at odds with its previous factual finding and the remedy for this error is remand for reconsideration.

Court Description: [Stras, Author, with Kelly and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. In denying defendant's motion for a First Step Act reduction, the court erred in relying a drug-quantity figure that did not match the amount attributed to him at sentencing, and the matter is remanded for further consideration.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2515 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Frank G. Rendon Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: April 15, 2020 Filed: July 27, 2020 ____________ Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ STRAS, Circuit Judge. The district court denied a sentence reduction to Frank Rendon, who is serving a 360-month sentence for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (allowing for the filing of a sentence-reduction motion). In doing so, it relied on a drug-quantity figure that did not match what was attributed to him at sentencing. In light of this inconsistency, we vacate and remand for reconsideration. Rendon seeks to take advantage of Amendment 782, which retroactively “lower[ed] the base offense level[s] for most drug[-]quantity offenses.” United States v. Thomas, 775 F.3d 982, 982–83 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). Generally speaking, it reduced base offense levels at each drug-quantity threshold by two, id. at 982, by pegging them to a higher quantity than before. As applicable here, for example, the threshold for receiving a base offense level of 38 increased from 15 to 45 kilograms of methamphetamine. See U.S.S.G. supp. to app. C, amend. 782, 788 (2014); see also Thomas, 775 F.3d at 982–83 (discussing Amendment 782). For Rendon, two findings at his original sentencing gave him a base offense level of 38. See United States v. Rendon, 752 F.3d 1130, 1133 (8th Cir. 2014). The first was that he was responsible for at least 15 kilograms of methamphetamine. See id. at 1133, 1135. The second was that the presentence investigation report’s estimate of 136.08 kilograms was too high. The quantity, in other words, fell along a spectrum: at least 15, but less than 136.08, kilograms of methamphetamine. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2011). With these findings, Rendon’s Guidelines range was 360 months to life imprisonment in 2013. See Rendon, 752 F.3d at 1133. Today, under Amendment 782, the range may not be so high. Specifically, if the quantity attributable to him was at the lower end of the spectrum—between 15 and 45 kilograms—then his new base offense level would be 36 and the new range likely between 292 and 365 months in prison. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2); id. ch. pt. A. The district court went in a different direction. It simply assumed that the correct drug amount was 136.08 kilograms and denied Rendon’s motion. The problem, of course, is that it had already rejected this figure earlier—at Rendon’s original sentencing—when it overruled the estimate in the presentence investigation -2- report. So the amount it used in denying Rendon’s motion (136.08 kilograms) was “at odds” with its “previous factual finding[]” (not 136.08 kilograms). United States v. Anderson, 707 F.3d 973, 975 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citation omitted); see United States v. Adams, 104 F.3d 1028, 1029–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the district court could not hold the defendant responsible for 110 marijuana plants at resentencing because it had held him accountable for exactly 73 plants before). The remedy for this error is remand for reconsideration. See United States v. Williams, 103 F.3d 57, 58–59 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (remanding when the district court made a legal error in denying a sentence-reduction motion); see also United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 715 (5th Cir. 2018) (remanding for reconsideration when the district court mistakenly relied on a probation officer’s earlier statement when it denied a sentence-reduction motion under Amendment 782). On remand, the district court is free to make a new drug-quantity finding as long as it lands between 15 and 136.08 kilograms. See Anderson, 707 F.3d at 975. What it cannot do, however, is pick an amount that it has already rejected. We accordingly vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for reconsideration of Rendon’s motion. ______________________________ -3-

Primary Holding

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.