Opinion
08-10223-1-JWB
06-10-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE SANDOVAL-VALADEZ, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN W. BROOMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Defendant seeks a reduction in his sentence due to changes in the sentencing guidelines. (Doc. 114.) The government opposes the motion. (Doc. 116.)
“A district court does not have inherent authority to modify a previously imposed sentence; it may do so only pursuant to statutory authorization.” See United States v. Mendoza, 118 F.3d 707, 709 (10th Cir. 1997). Section 3582 allows for a possible sentence reduction for a defendant “who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Sentencing Commission amended the United States Sentencing Guidelines effective November 1, 2023. See 88 Fed.Reg. 28,254, 2023 WL 3199918 (May 3, 2023).
Defendant's motion indicates that he thinks he may be eligible for a reduction as a zeropoint offender or because he might have received status points which affected his sentence. (Doc. 114.) On March 23, 2009, Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of an information charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. (Doc. 49.) In the plea agreement, the government agreed to recommend a sentence of 48 months. (Id. at 3.) In June 2009, Defendant failed to appear for his sentencing. Defendant was later arrested in Arizona on state drug charges concerning conduct that occurred in 2012. (Doc. 85 at 9.) On September 30, 2015, in Arizona, Defendant was sentenced to approximately 12 years for possession of heroin for sale and conspiracy to possess methamphetamine for sale. (Id.) On October 18, 2018, this court sentenced Defendant to 24 months on each count of conviction to run consecutively for a total sentence of 48 months. (Doc. 88.) Defendant remains in custody on his sentence in this case.
Although Defendant believes he is eligible for reduction under the amendment, a review of his amended presentence report shows that he is not a zero-point offender nor did he receive status points. (Doc. 85 ¶¶ 41-42.) Therefore, he is not eligible for a reduction under the amendments.
Defendant's motion for a reduction (Doc. 114) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.