United States v. Finazzo, No. 15-10272 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAfter defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine, she was sentenced to a 172 months in prison. The United States Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered the sentencing range for defendant's crime and she moved to reduce her sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) permits such reductions when the Commission has lowered the applicable Guidelines range after sentencing. The district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. When granting a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2), a court cannot reduce the sentence to a term “that is less than the minimum of the amended [G]uideline[s] range.” There is an exception to this rule for a defendant who originally received a below-Guidelines sentence as the result of “a government motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities.” The court held that the government's conduct in this case did not amount to a motion and the commentary to Guidelines 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) buttresses this conclusion. The court also rejected defendant's arguments regarding the canon of constitutional avoidance and the rule of lenity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part Tina-Marie Finazzo’s motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on a retroactive 2014 amendment that lowered her applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. At the original sentencing, the probation office recommended a downward variance, and the government assented with the caveat that it was not making a motion for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 based on substantial assistance to authorities. The district court adopted the recommendation and imposed a 172-month sentence based in part on Finazzo’s early and extensive cooperation with law enforcement. On Finazzo’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court reduced her sentence to the bottom of the amended Guidelines range, 168 months, but denied her request for a downward variance comparable to what she received as part at her original sentencing because the initial variance was not based on her substantial assistance to authorities. Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), a reduction comparably less than the amended Guidelines range may be appropriate for a defendant who received at the time of sentencing a below-Guidelines sentence as the result of “a UNITED STATES V. FINAZZO 3 government motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities.” The panel held that the government’s conduct in this case did not amount to a motion, and rejected Finazzo’s argument that the canon of constitutional avoidance and the rule of lenity compel interpretation of § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) as being triggered by a government motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
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.