United States District Court, S.D. New York
Attorney for Petitioner Petitioner, pro se Pablo
Attorney for Defendant JOON H. KIM Acting United States
Attorney Southern District of New York One Saint Andrew's
Pablo Ventura-Nieves ("Ventura-Nieves" or the
"Petitioner") has moved for reconsideration of the
Court's November 4, 2016, opinion denying
Petitioner's motion, as construed by the Court, for a
reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). (Cr. Dkt. 368.) For the reasons set forth below,
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is granted, and
his motion for a reduction of his sentence is denied.
facts underlying this action were previously set forth in the
sentencing opinion of this Court dated December 4, 2014,
(see Cr. Dkt. 206), knowledge of which is assumed.
Certain facts are repeated in part as relevant to the instant
February 26, 2014, Ventura-Nieves pled guilty to conspiracy
to distribute five kilograms and more of cocaine in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. The Court
issued a sentencing opinion on December 4, 2016, adopting the
November 2013 Guidelines calculations of the plea agreement
and indicating the Court's intent to impose a
below-Guidelines sentence of 120 months' imprisonment.
(Cr. Dkt. 206.)
Ventura-Nieves' sentencing, based on both parties'
subsequent sentencing submissions that recommended the Court
calculate using the newly amended 2014 Sentencing Guidelines,
the Court imposed the bottom of the newly-calculated
Guidelines range, 135 months' imprisonment. (Cr. Dkt. 271
at 11:6.) The Court found Ventura-Nieves's
"guidelines sentence . . . appropriate because of the
role played by the defendant" in the conspiracy, which
the Court stated was "integral." (Id. at
October 31, 2016, Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Cr. Dkt. 367; Civ. Dkt.
1.) On November 15, 2016, the Court, construing
Petitioner's petition as a motion for a sentence
reduction due to Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), denied it
because Ventura-Nieves was properly sentenced under the
amended Guidelines range. (Cr. Dkt. 368/ Civ. Dkt. 2.) On
November 21, 2016, the Court received Petitioner's
Memorandum of Law in support of his habeas petition, although
Petitioner had certified the document was physically mailed
to the Clerk of Court nine days earlier. (Cr. Dkt. 374; Civ.
December 1, 2016, Petitioner moved for reconsideration of his
habeas petition. (Civ. Dkt. 4.) The instant motion was taken
on submission and marked fully submitted on January 19, 2017.
moving for reconsideration "must demonstrate that the
Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters
that were put before it on the underlying motion."
Eisenmann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393, 395 n.2 (2d Cir.
2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "The major
grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change
of controlling law, the available of new evidence, or the
need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice." Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l
Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). A motion for
reconsideration should be granted where "the moving
party can point to controlling decisions or data that the
court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might
reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the
court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d
255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
Court Will Reconsider ...