United States of America v. Gabriel Caracheo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GABRIEL CARACHEO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10249
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00248-WBS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Caracheo appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion
for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
Caracheo contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10249
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a
district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See
United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014, 1019 n.6 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
Because Caracheo was sentenced after the district court accepted the parties’
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, he is not eligible
for relief under section 3582(c)(2) unless “the district court’s decision to accept the
plea and impose the recommended sentence was based on the Guidelines.” Id. at
1027 (internal quotations omitted).
The Supreme Court recently clarified that “a sentence imposed pursuant to a
Type-C agreement is ‘based on’ the defendant’s Guidelines range so long as that
range was part of the framework the district court relied on in imposing the
sentence or accepting the agreement.” Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765,
1775 (2018). The district court in this case did not have the benefit of Hughes
when it denied Caracheo’s motion; therefore, we vacate its order denying relief and
remand. On remand, the district court shall determine whether Caracheo is eligible
for a sentence reduction under Hughes and, if so, whether he should receive a
reduction in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Dillon v.
United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010).
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --