United States v. Santos

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: March 11, 2026
• Docket: 24-2672-cr
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

24-2672-cr United States v. Santos

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2 Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 3 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 11th day of March, two thousand 4 twenty-six. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 United States of America, 14 15 Appellee, 16 17 v. 24-2672 18 19 Manuel Santos, 20 21 Defendant-Appellant.

1 1 _____________________________________ 2 3 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Manuel Santos, pro se, Otisville, 4 NY. 5 6 FOR APPELLEE: Elizabeth D’Antonio, Assistant 7 United States Attorney (Susan 8 Corkery, Assistant United States 9 Attorney, on the brief), for Joseph 10 Nocella, Jr., United States 11 Attorney for the Eastern District 12 of New York, Brooklyn, NY. 13 14 Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern

15 District of New York (Allyne R. Ross, Judge).

16 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

17 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court, entered on

18 September 17, 2024, is AFFIRMED.

19 Manuel Santos, pro se, appeals from the district court’s denial of his

20 motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In 2004, a jury

21 found Santos guilty of two counts of murder while engaging in a drug offense,

22 and one count of possessing and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime

23 of violence. In 2005, the district court sentenced Santos, principally, to two

24 concurrent life terms of imprisonment, and a consecutive term of 10 years’

2 1 imprisonment. In June 2024, Santos filed a fifth motion for a sentence reduction

2 under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that changes in the law amounted to

3 extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, among other things. The

4 district court denied the motion, concluding that Santos had not established any

5 extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. United States v.

6 Santos, No. 01-CR-537 (ARR), 2024 WL 4212024 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2024). We

7 assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining facts, procedural history, and

8 issues on appeal. 1

9 We review “the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of

10 discretion, which incorporates de novo review with respect to questions of

11 statutory interpretation.” United States v. Saladino, 7 F.4th 120, 122 (2d Cir. 2021)

12 (per curiam). “A district court has abused its discretion if it has (1) based its

13 ruling on an erroneous view of the law, (2) made a clearly erroneous assessment

14 of the evidence, or (3) rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range

15 of permissible decisions.” United States v. Keitt, 21 F.4th 67, 71 (2d Cir. 2021) (per

16 curiam) (quoting Saladino, 7 F.4th at 122).

1 On appeal, Santos also filed a motion for compassionate release directly with this Court.

3 1 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court “may reduce” a

2 defendant’s term of imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling reasons

3 warrant such a reduction,” and “after considering the factors set forth in section

4 3553(a).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Concluding that either condition is not

5 present is sufficient to deny relief and for this Court to affirm. See Keitt, 21 F.4th

6 at 73.

7 Upon reviewing the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse

8 its discretion by denying compassionate release. Santos failed to establish an

9 extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction based on changes

10 in the law.

11 First, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), did not amount to a change

12 in the law for purposes of Santos’s sentence because it was decided before Santos’s

13 sentencing. Booker was decided on January 12, 2005, months before Santos’s

14 October 2005 sentencing.

15 Second, Santos’s arguments premised on Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S.

16 99 (2013), lack merit. In Alleyne, the Supreme Court held that “any fact that

17 increases the mandatory minimum [sentence] is an ‘element’ that must be

4 1 submitted to the jury.” 570 U.S. at 103. In that case, “the District Court

2 imposed [a] 7–year mandatory minimum sentence based on its finding by a

3 preponderance of evidence that [a] firearm was ‘brandished.’ Because the

4 finding of brandishing increased the penalty to which the defendant was

5 subjected, it was an element, which had to be found by the jury beyond a

6 reasonable doubt.” Id. at 117.

7 Here, as the district court had previously explained, there was no doubt

8 that the jury would have found that Santos discharged a firearm under 18 U.S.C.

9 § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) because the jury had found him guilty of intentional killing for

10 the same conduct. [See ROA doc. 188 (Or.).] On appeal, Santos emphasizes

11 that the jury was given aiding-and-abetting instructions. [Appellant’s Br. at 12–

12 13.] But “aiding and abetting merely assigns criminal liability; it does not define

13 the crime.” Medunjanin v. United States, 99 F.4th 129, 135–36 (2d Cir. 2024).

14 Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying

15 Santos’s fifth motion for a sentence reduction. For the same reasons, we also

16 deny Santos’s motion for compassionate release that he directly filed with this

17 Court.

5 1 We have considered all of Santos’s remaining arguments and find them to

2 be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court,

3 entered on September 17, 2024, and DENY Santos’s motion for compassionate

4 release.

5 FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court