USA v. Amaya-Nunez, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Criminal Case No. 20-cr-292-WJM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.
2. AZUSENA MARIBEL SIERRA,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) AND AMENDMENT 821
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Azusena Maribel Sierra’s pro se
Motion for Reduction of Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment
821 to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (“Motion”) (ECF No. 874). The Government
filed a response (ECF No. 883). Sierra did not file a reply. For the following reasons,
the Motion is denied.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2023, the Court sentenced Sierra to 288 months in prison after she
pleaded guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with the Intent to
Distribute One Kilogram and More of a Mixture Substance Containing a Detectable
Amount of Heroin and one count of Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering. 	(ECF
No. 874 at 2; ECF No. 763.) The Court adopted Sierra’s presentence investigation
report (“PIR”) without change. (ECF No. 883 at 4; ECF No. 764 at 1.) In the PIR, Sierra
Case No. 1:20-cr-00292-WJM Document 970 filed 11/04/24 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

2
was assessed a criminal history score of one. (ECF No. 874 at 3; ECF No. 883 at 1, 4;
ECF No. 735 at 21–23.)
Sierra has been in custody since September 30, 2020. (ECF No. 735 at 1.) She
states that, since she has been in prison, she has obtained employment working “for
trust funds in laundry at the Dublin facility” and is on the waiting list for her GED and
other programs. (ECF No. 874 at 3.) Sierra’s current projected release date is
February 1, 2041. (Id.) In the Motion, she seeks a reduction in her sentence based on
Amendment 821 to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”). (Id. at 1.)
Specifically, she requests a reduction based on (1) adjustments for zero-point offenders,
U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, and (2) the assessment of “status points” for offenders who were
under a criminal justice sentence at the time of the instant offense, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d),
(e). (Id. at 1.)
II. 	ANALYSIS
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court may modify the sentence
of 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
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 944(o), upon motion of the
defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons [“BOP”],
or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of
imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in
section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such
a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.
In relevant part, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 directs that a defendant is not entitled to a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c)(2)—i.e., a reduction is not consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission—if a covered amendment “does not
Case No. 1:20-cr-00292-WJM Document 970 filed 11/04/24 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3
have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2).
Previously, the Sentencing Guidelines mandated that two points (colloquially
referred to as “status points”) should be added to a defendant’s criminal history score “if
the defendant committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence,
including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape
status.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) (2021 ed.). Amendment 821, however, made it such that
“status points” should only be assigned to defendants who are first assessed seven or
more criminal history points under §§ 4A1.1(a)–(d). U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) (2023 ed.) If a
defendant meets the seven-point threshold, they should then be assessed just one
“status point” if they were under a criminal justice sentence during any part of the instant
offense. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e), cmt. 5.
Amendment 821 also incorporated an entirely new provision to the Sentencing
Guidelines concerning adjustments for “zero-point offenders.” U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 (2023
ed.). That provision instructs that a court should “decrease the offense level determined
under Chapters Two and Three” of the Sentencing Guidelines “by 2 levels” if a
defendant satisfies each of ten criteria. U.S.S.G. § 4C.1.1(a). One such criteria is that
“the defendant did not receive any criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A.”
U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(1).
Here, neither the changes to § 4A1.1 nor to § 4C1.1 authorize the Court to
reduce Sierra’s sentence.
Amended § 4A1.1 has no effect on the calculation of Sierra’s sentence because
she was not assessed any status points in the first instance. (See ECF No. 735 at 21-
Case No. 1:20-cr-00292-WJM Document 970 filed 11/04/24 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

4
23.) Most recently before her current sentence, Sierra was under a period of probation
which terminated in 2014. (Id. at 22.) Thus, she was not under any criminal justice
sentence at the time of her conviction, and the “status points” provision did not apply to
her original sentencing.
By the same token, however, Sierra was assessed one criminal history point for
this most recent prior offense. (Id.) As a result, she does not meet the criteria for a
decrease in her offense level under § 4C1.1(a). See § 4C1.1(a)(1) (defendant eligible
for decrease in offense level if, among other criteria, “the defendant did not receive any
criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A”).
For these reasons, neither provision as amended by Amendment 821 authorizes
the Court to reduce her sentence. Accordingly, her Motion is denied.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.
Dated this 4th day of November, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
William J. Martínez
Senior United States District Judge
Case No. 1:20-cr-00292-WJM Document 970 filed 11/04/24 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4