Acosta v. United States
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:17-cv-00915
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Acosta v. United States, Judge Gardephe denied Carlos Acosta’s petitions, finding them untimely and rejecting his sentence-reduction, treatment-program, and Johnson arguments.
Carlos Acosta, whose petitions for sentence-related relief were denied; the United States and the Bureau of Prisons, whose positions were upheld in the order.
What happened
In Acosta v. United States, Carlos Acosta sought reductions of his 121-month sentence through two petitions. He relied on a later drug-sentencing guideline change, the Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to admit him to a drug-treatment program, and a Supreme Court decision concerning a different sentencing law.
The government argued that Acosta filed his petitions too late and that each claim also failed. The opinion explains that Acosta had already received the benefit of the guideline change when he was sentenced, and that an immigration detainer made him ineligible for early release through the treatment program.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied both petitions, concluding that the sentence challenge was filed after the one-year deadline and that the claims otherwise lacked merit. The court also denied special permission to appeal without paying filing fees and closed the related civil case.
The detailed version
- Acosta v. United States · No. 1:17-cv-00915
- Paul Gardephe
- May 2, 2020
Background
Carlos Acosta pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least one kilogram of heroin and to distributing and possessing oxycodone. The court sentenced him to 121 months in prison on May 29, 2014. The judgment became final on July 2, 2014, because Acosta did not file a direct appeal.
Acosta later filed two pro se petitions seeking sentence reductions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court understood the difficult-to-read petitions to raise three issues: a reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines; the Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to admit Acosta to its Residential Drug Abuse Program, known as RDAP; and unspecified relief under Johnson v. United States.
Statute of limitations
The court held that Acosta’s request for relief under Section 2255 was barred by that statute’s one-year filing deadline. His first petition was filed on February 6, 2017, more than two and a half years after his conviction became final. The court found that Acosta had not invoked, and had not shown a basis for, an exception to the deadline based on equitable tolling or actual innocence.
Amendment 782
The court also rejected Acosta’s request for another reduction based on Amendment 782. Although the amendment was not yet effective when Acosta was sentenced, the court had already applied its proposed two-level reduction, using a guideline range of 121 to 151 months instead of 151 to 188 months. Acosta received a 121-month sentence, the bottom of the reduced range. The court further found that Acosta had agreed not to seek a later sentence modification based on the amendment. It concluded that he had already received the amendment’s benefit and could not obtain further relief on that ground.
RDAP eligibility
The court understood Acosta to argue that the Bureau of Prisons denied him entry into RDAP because of his immigration status and an immigration detainer. The court stated that inmates who complete RDAP may become eligible for sentence reductions of up to one year, but that regulations make inmates subject to immigration detainers ineligible for early release through RDAP or otherwise. The court concluded that Acosta’s RDAP ineligibility did not entitle him to relief.
Johnson claim
The court rejected Acosta’s reliance on Johnson v. United States. Johnson held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague. Because Acosta was not charged with or sentenced under that Act, the court found that Johnson did not apply to his case.
Disposition
The court denied the petitions filed in the criminal case and the related civil case. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the petitions and close Case No. 17 Civ. 915. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Acosta permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The government was directed to serve Acosta with the order and file proof of service within seven days.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.