Herrera v. United States

Background

Mario Herrera pleaded guilty in 2017 to conspiring to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. Under his plea agreement, the agreed sentencing range was 151 to 188 months, and Herrera waived direct appeal and collateral challenges to any sentence within or below that range. Judge Preska sentenced him to 151 months in prison. His challenge to a special supervised-release condition was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Herrera previously filed a sentence challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his guilty plea and sentence resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied that earlier petition in 2021. In the present case, Herrera filed a second § 2255 petition without first obtaining authorization from the Court of Appeals. He argued that changes in New York law decriminalizing certain marijuana offenses should have reduced his criminal-history category and sentencing range. He also filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), repeating the marijuana-law argument and asserting that back pain supported early release. The Government opposed both motions, and Herrera replied.

Second Sentence Challenge

The court held that the plea-agreement waiver was valid and enforceable. Because Herrera received a 151-month sentence—within the agreed range of 151 to 188 months—the waiver barred his collateral challenge to the sentence. The court noted that such waivers can be set aside in circumstances involving an invalid waiver process, including an involuntary plea or ineffective assistance of counsel, but found no basis to do so here.

The court also ruled that Herrera’s second § 2255 petition could not be considered because he had not obtained the required authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing it. The court treated that failure as an independent basis to deny the petition.

The court further explained that the petition would fail even if Herrera had obtained authorization and overcome the plea-agreement waiver. It held that New York’s later reclassification or decriminalization of prior marijuana offenses did not apply retroactively to the already-final criminal-history calculation. The court also stated that, even under Herrera’s proposed lower criminal-history category and resulting 135-to-168-month range, there was no indication that he would have received a different sentence.

Compassionate Release Motion

The court rejected Herrera’s argument that the changes in New York law supported a sentence reduction for the same reasons. It also rejected his claim based on back pain. Under the governing sentencing guidance, a medical condition may support release when it substantially limits a person’s ability to care for himself in prison and is not expected to improve. The court found that Herrera was receiving medication and regular medical care for his back pain and therefore had not shown an extraordinary and compelling reason for release.

The court separately found that the sentencing factors weighed against release. It relied on the seriousness of Herrera’s drug-trafficking conduct, its finding that he led a drug-trafficking organization, and the need for adequate punishment and deterrence. The court also considered five disciplinary incidents during incarceration, including an assault, participation in a fight, disruptive conduct, refusal to take a drug or alcohol test, and inappropriate touching of a female visitor. The court concluded that release after about seven years would not provide adequate punishment or sufficiently protect the community.

Disposition

The court denied Herrera’s Second 2255 Petition and his compassionate-release motion without a hearing. The order was signed by Senior United States District Judge Loretta A. Preska.