Filed: Jan. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-1620 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AXEL SANTOS-CRUZ, Appellant _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal Action No. 2:99-cr-00505-001) District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond _ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 2, 2019 Before: CHAGARES, BIBAS and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 31, 2019) _ OPINION* _ PER CURIAM Ax
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-1620 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AXEL SANTOS-CRUZ, Appellant _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal Action No. 2:99-cr-00505-001) District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond _ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 2, 2019 Before: CHAGARES, BIBAS and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 31, 2019) _ OPINION* _ PER CURIAM Axe..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-1620
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
AXEL SANTOS-CRUZ,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2:99-cr-00505-001)
District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 2, 2019
Before: CHAGARES, BIBAS and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 31, 2019)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Axel Santos-Cruz, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying his
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
motion requesting a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). For the
reasons that follow, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
In 2000, Santos-Cruz and his co-defendant were convicted of conspiracy to
distribute and possession with intent to distribute more than 1,000 grams of heroin and
more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. At sentencing, the District Court sentenced Santos-
Cruz to life imprisonment, and we affirmed the judgment. See United States v. Santos-
Cruz, 45 F. App’x 190, 191 (3d Cir. 2002).
Santos-Cruz later filed motions for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2), at first pro se, then through appointed counsel. He sought to have his
sentence reduced based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which
reduced the offense levels assigned to most drug quantities under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) by
two levels. Before he filed the motion related to the order challenged in this appeal,
President Barack Obama commuted Santos-Cruz’s sentence to 360 months’
imprisonment. See dkt # 201. The District Court denied Santos-Cruz’s most recent
motion for reduction of sentence. Santos-Cruz appeals and seeks the appointment of
counsel.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In considering the denial of a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion, we exercise plenary review over a district court’s interpretation of
the Sentencing Guidelines and otherwise review the denial of relief for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Mateo,
560 F.3d 152, 154 (3d Cir. 2009).
Upon review, we conclude that the District Court properly declined to reduce
Santos-Cruz’s commuted sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment. Accordingly, we will
2
affirm the District Court’s judgment. Santos-Cruz’s motion for appointment of counsel is
denied.
3