Hernandez v. United States

Background

Demetrio Hernandez moved to reduce his 396-month sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and § 3582(c)(1)(A). He relied on Amendments 706, 750, and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively lowered guideline offense levels for some crack-cocaine offenses. He also argued that extraordinary and compelling reasons supported a reduction.

Hernandez had pleaded guilty to three counts: participating in a racketeering enterprise through a conspiracy to murder and distribute narcotics; attempted murder in aid of racketeering; and conspiracy to assault in aid of racketeering. The court stated that Hernandez led the Hoe Avenue Enterprise, which sold crack cocaine and used firearms. The court also described several killings and attempted killings connected to the organization. The presentence report calculated a sentencing range of life imprisonment, but recommended 396 months because the three counts had an aggregate statutory maximum of 33 years. The sentencing court imposed 396 months.

Guideline-Reduction Claim

Section 3582(c)(2) permits a court to reduce a sentence when a defendant was sentenced based on a guideline range that the Sentencing Commission later lowered. The court applied the required two-step analysis: first, whether the amendment lowered the applicable sentencing range; and second, whether a reduction was consistent with the statutory sentencing factors.

The court held that the amendments did not lower Hernandez’s applicable sentencing range. The crack-cocaine conspiracy was one racketeering act supporting Count One, but it had little effect on the overall offense-level calculation. Even if that act had an offense level of zero, the grouped offense level for Count One would fall by only one level, from 47 to 46 after accounting for Hernandez’s leadership role and acceptance of responsibility. An offense level of 46 would still produce a sentencing range above the 33-year aggregate statutory maximum. The court therefore concluded that Hernandez was ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2).

Extraordinary-and-Compelling-Reasons Claim

Section 3582(c)(1)(A) permits a sentence reduction when extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant one and the reduction is consistent with the statutory sentencing factors. Hernandez argued that the harsh conditions created by the COVID-19 pandemic justified a reduction. The government argued, and Hernandez did not contest, that his medical records showed no underlying conditions placing him at heightened risk of severe medical complications or death from COVID-19. The court held that the pandemic therefore did not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for release.

Hernandez also argued that his sentence was unusually long because of the guideline amendments. The court rejected that argument because the amendments did not change his sentencing range. It concluded that the amendments did not create the required gross disparity between the sentence Hernandez was serving and the sentence likely to be imposed when he filed his motions. The court found that Hernandez had not shown an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting a reduction.

Disposition

Judge Ramos denied Hernandez’s motions under both § 3582(c)(2) and § 3582(c)(1)(A). The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Documents 128, 133, 134, 140, and 144.