Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Published Opinions
Friday, August 04, 2017
Caraballo: District Courts Have Jurisdiction to Consider Successive 3582(c)(2) Motion Where Initial Motion Denied
In United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, No. 16-11772 (August 4, 2017) (Hull, Marcus, Clevenger), the Court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion for a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The primary question on appeal was a threshold one: whether the district court had jurisdiction to entertain Caraballo's successive 3582(c)(2) motion. Although he was eligible for a sentencing reduction based on Amendment 599, the district court had denied his initial 3582(c)(2) motion under the 3553(a) factors. Caraballo then filed a renewed 3582(c)(2) motion based on the same Guideline. On appeal, the Court held that, where the district court denies -- as opposed to grants -- the initial 3582(c)(2) motion and thus does not impose a different sentence, the court retains jurisdiction to consider a successive 3582(c)(2) motion based on the same Guideline. The Court declined to address, and thus left open, whether there were non-jurisdictional prohibitions on such successive motions. The Court nonetheless affirmed the denial of Caraballo's successive 3582(c)(2) motion, finding that the district court had sufficiently considered and weighed the 3553(a) factors.