United States v. Angel Reyes-Valdez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: May 16, 2025
• Docket: 24-3383
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ALD-132 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 24-3383 ___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ANGEL RAFAEL REYES-VALDEZ a/k/a Abel Anton Alberto Nunez, Appellant ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal Action No. 2:21-cr-00091-002) District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle, III ____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 24, 2025 Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 16, 2025) _________

OPINION * _________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Angel Reyes-Valdez appeals from the order of the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying his motion for sentencing relief under

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We will summarily affirm.

Reyes-Valdez was convicted of drug- and immigration-related offenses following

a four-day jury trial in July 2024, and the District Court sentenced him to an aggregate

term of 300 months’ imprisonment. Although still represented by counsel, Reyes-Valdez

subsequently filed a motion on his own behalf for a two-level sentence reduction under

Section 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. His

trial counsel appealed his conviction and sentence a few days later, prompting the District

Court to deny his pro se motion for lack of jurisdiction. Reyes-Valdez appealed that

order himself as well, and the United States has filed a timely motion for summary

affirmance and to be excused from the obligation to file a brief.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we generally review a

District Court’s denial of relief under Section 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United

States v. Thompson, 825 F.3d 198, 203 (3d Cir. 2016). We may summarily affirm the

District Court’s decision if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir.

L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

Reyes-Valdez’s appeal does not present a substantial question. The District Court

lost jurisdiction to rule on his pro se motion under Section 3582(c)(2) the moment his

attorney appealed the judgment of conviction, see Griggs v. Provident Consumer

Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58-59 (1982) (per curiam), and the motion was meritless in

any event. Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes District Courts to reduce a defendant’s sentence

2 if the defendant “had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing

range that has subsequently been lowered by the [United States] Sentencing

Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). Reyes-Valdez urged the

District Court to reduce his total offense level by two offense levels in light of

Amendment 821 of the Sentencing Guidelines. That amendment, effective November 1,

2023, affords sentencing relief to two discrete classes of defendants: (1) “zero-point

offenders,” i.e., defendants who did not receive any criminal history points at sentencing;

and (2) defendants who were assessed two criminal history points (or “status points”) for

offenses committed while serving a criminal justice sentence. See U.S. SENTENCING

COMM’N, Amendment 821, available at https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/amendment/821.

Reyes-Valdez was sentenced in October 2024—one year after Amendment 821

took effect—and thus he is ineligible for retroactive sentencing relief under that

amendment and Section 3582(c)(2). To the extent he seeks to contest the District Court’s

sentence, including the applicability of Amendment 821 to the court’s guidelines

calculations, he may do so on direct appeal. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion and will summarily affirm the

District Court’s order denying sentencing relief.