Baranco v. United States

Background

Edgardo Baranco pleaded guilty in the related criminal case to conspiracy to distribute narcotics, specifically crack cocaine. The court sentenced him principally to 60 months of incarceration, the mandatory minimum, followed by four years of supervised release. While incarcerated at FCI Danbury, Baranco filed a self-represented motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He challenged the execution of his sentence, sought a reduction based on the proposed EQUAL Act of 2021 and a December 16, 2022 memorandum from the United States Attorney General, and sought a sentence modification based on his conduct in prison.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a federal prisoner may use Section 2255 to seek correction of a sentence imposed in violation of federal law or the Constitution. It also explained that the court could deny the motion without first requiring a response from the United States if the motion and existing record showed that Baranco was not entitled to relief. Although self-represented filings must be read generously, a self-represented litigant still must follow relevant procedural and substantive rules.

Baranco’s first argument was that, after sentencing, the Bureau of Prisons improperly added a two-point enhancement for gun possession. The court treated this as a challenge to the execution of the sentence, meaning the way prison officials calculate or carry out the sentence. The court said that challenge had to be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not Section 2255, in the federal district where Baranco was confined—the District of Connecticut—and only after he exhausted available administrative remedies. The court therefore rejected this argument, without prejudice to renewal in the proper district.

The court rejected Baranco’s request for a reduction under the EQUAL Act of 2021 because the bill had passed the House of Representatives but not the Senate and therefore was not law. The court also said the Attorney General’s memorandum did not give it authority to change Baranco’s sentence. Finally, the court explained that a request based on prison conduct could be made under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), which permits a reduction for extraordinary and compelling reasons, but that a defendant must first exhaust remedies within the Bureau of Prisons. The court found no indication that Baranco had done so.

Disposition

The court denied Baranco’s motion. It did not issue a certificate of appealability because Baranco had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The Clerk was directed to close the civil case and terminate the specified docket entry in the criminal case.