USA v. SANCHEZ

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:21-cr-O0560-CKK Document52 _ Filed 06/03/26 Page1of9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Vv.

Criminal Action No. 21-560 (CKK)
EDWIN SANCHEZ,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(June 3, 2026)

Pending before this Court is Defendant Edwin Sanchez’s [43] Motion to Reduce
Sentence (“Def.’s Mot.”), which is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582 (c)(2) and U.S.S.G. §
1B1.10; the United States’ [48] [redacted, public version of its] Opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Reduce Sentence ("Govt. Opp'n"); and Defendant's [50] Reply in Support of Motion
to Reduce Sentence ("Def.'s Reply"). Upon review of the pleadings, the relevant legal
authorities, the record in this case, and for the reasons set forth herein, this Court DENIES
Defendant Edwin Sanchez’s Motion to Reduce Sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 1, 2022, Defendant Edwin Sanchez (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Mr.
Sanchez”) entered into a plea agreement with the Government whereby he pleaded guilty to one
count of Bank Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Plea Agreement, ECF No. 20.
The circumstances of the bank robbery for which Defendant was charged are as follows. On
November 30, 2020, Mr. Sanchez entered the TD Bank on K Street, Northwest, in Washington,
D.C. and he told the teller that it was an armed robbery, and she was to give him money and her

wallet. Govt. Opp’n, ECF No. 48, at 1-2. Defendant produced a butcher knife. Jd. at 2. The

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:21-cr-O0560-CKK Document52 _ Filed 06/03/26 Page 2 of9

teller stated that she did not have a wallet, but she did give Defendant $880 from the cash
register. As he walked away, the teller fainted and hit her head. Jd. While the robbery was in
progress, another bank employee hit the silent alarm to summon the police. Jd. When the police
arrived, the employees identified Defendant, who subsequently admitted to robbing the TD
Bank. Jd.

The Presentence Report (“PSR”) in this case calculated a base offense level of twenty,
and then added two levels for robbing a financial institution and three levels for brandishing a
knife. PSR, ECF No. 25, at 5. Considering Defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, he was
assigned a three-level reduction, bringing his total offense level to twenty-two. Jd. Defendant
was assigned eight criminal history points for his prior convictions and two “status points”
because he committed the bank robbery offense while he was under a criminal justice sentence.
Id. at 11. Ultimately, with a total offense level of twenty-two and a Criminal History category
of V, Mr. Sanchez’s sentencing guideline range was 77-96 months, and on March 6, 2023, he
was sentenced to 77 months, followed by three years of supervised release. Judgment, ECF No.
39: see also Plea Agreement, ECF No. 20, at 3 (acknowledging that “the government will
recommend at sentencing that [Defendant] be sentenced to the low-end of the applicable
guideline sentencing range”). Defendant is currently incarcerated with a projected release date
of July 8, 2028. On March 13, 2026, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Reduce Sentence,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Government opposes Defendant’s Motion.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a defendant may move for a reduction in his term

of imprisonment if he was sentenced "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been

lowered by the Sentencing Commission ... if such reduction is consistent with applicable policy

Case 1:21-cr-O0560-CKK Document52 _ Filed 06/03/26 Page 3of9

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission" and the §3582(c)(2) sentencing factors.
18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. §IB1.10(a)(1)(policy statement referencing Section
3582(c)(2)). In Section 1B1.10 (d) of the Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission identified
several covered amendments, including Part A of Amendment 821, which may be applied
retroactively to limit the overall criminal history impact of status points. More specifically, the
Sentencing Commission eliminated the old guidelines’ approach of adding two points whenever
a defendant committed an offense while under a criminal justice sentence, and now adds a single
status point for defendants who otherwise have seven or more criminal history points, and no
status points for those defendants with fewer than seven criminal history points. U.S.S.G. §
4A1.1(e).

A defendant's motion for reduction of sentence is evaluated in two steps. United States
v. Wyche, 741 F.3d 1284, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Step one involves determining whether the
defendant is eligible for a reduced sentence and, if so, calculating the amended Guidelines
range. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-827 (2010). Step two involves the court
"consider[ing] any applicable §3553(a) factors and determin[ing] whether, in its discretion, the
reduction authorized by reference to the policies relevant at step one is warranted in
whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case." Jd. at 827. Courts
must consider public safety considerations and may consider information regarding the post-
sentencing conduct or situation of the defendant, whether positive or negative. See, e.g., United
States v. Darden, 910 F.3d 1064, 1068 (8th Cir. 2018). Ifa court decides in its discretion to
grant a sentence reduction, it generally may not reduce the term of imprisonment to a term that
is less than the minimum of the new guideline range, U.S.S.G. §1B1.10(b)(2)(A), and "in no

event may the reduced term of imprisonment be less than the term of imprisonment the

Case 1:21-cr-O0560-CKK Document52 _ Filed 06/03/26 Page 4of9

defendant has already served." U.S.S.G. §1B1.10(b)(2)(C).

Finally, “[t]he grant of authority to the district court to reduce a term of imprisonment
is unambiguously discretionary,” even when the guideline range is actually reduced. United
States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Young, 555 F.3d
611, 614 (7th Cir. 2009) (noting that a district court has “substantial discretion” in deciding
whether to reduce a sentence).

Ill. ARGUMENT

Below the Court addresses Defendant’s eligibility and entitlement to a sentencing
reduction.

A. Eligibility

Defendant argues, and the Government agrees, that Defendant is eligible for a
sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which permits courts to reduce sentences
“in the case 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[.]” Def.’s
Mot., ECF No. 43, at 3 (internal citations omitted); Govt. Opp’n, ECF No. 48, at 3 (noting that
the Defendant satisfies the first, eligibility step). Such reduction must be “consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Defendant
notes that the Commission’s policy statement, inter alia, limits any reduction to no less than the
low-end of the now-applicable guidelines’ range, and this requirement is met here. Def.’s Mot.,
ECF No. 43, at 3. In the instant case, Defendant’s now-applicable guidelines’ range is 63-78
months, based on a total offense level of 22, eight criminal history points, one status point, and
a criminal history category of IV. Defendant requests that the Court resentence him to 63

months — which is the low-end of the amended guidelines’ range — resulting in a 14-month

Case 1:21-cr-O0560-CKK Document52 _ Filed 06/03/26 Page5of9

sentence reduction and a projected release date of May 8, 2027. Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 43, at 4.

B. Entitlement

While the Government acknowledges that Defendant is eligible for a sentencing
reduction, the Government disagrees with Defendant regarding his alleged entitlement to such
reduction. Below is a summary of the arguments proffered by both sides.

1. Defendant’s Position

As explained in more detail below, Defendant relies upon his analysis of the Section
3553(a) factors in the context of Defendant’s mental health history, his positive response to
mental health treatment, his completion of basic cognitive skills classes, and his clean
disciplinary record while incarcerated. Defendant contends that, ‘[a]t sentencing, this Court
considered Mr. Sanchez’s mental health condition as one of the factors supporting a low-end
sentence.” Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 43, at 4. Defendant notes that he was diagnosed with Paranoid
Schizophrenia after he enlisted with the United States Marines at 18 years ofage. Id. Defendant
asserts that his “subsequent involvement in the criminal legal system was the direct result of his
mental illness, as he spent much of this time living on the streets, without medication, and out
of touch with his support system.” Jd.; see Def.’s Sent. Mem., ECF No. 34, at 8.

In contrast, while incarcerated, Defendant argues that he has been a “model inmate”
without a single disciplinary incident, which is a “strong testament to his rehabilitation and
commitment to adhering to the rules.” Jd. at 4; see Ex. 1, BOP Records at 11 (Discipline Data).
Mr. Sanchez has paid towards his special assessment and restitution balances regularly. Id. at
4; see Ex. 1, BOP Records at 10 (Inmate Financial Responsibility). He has completed an Illness
Management and Recovery course and has requested participation in a Basic Cognitive Skills

class as well as cognitive behavioral therapy-based classes to work on anger management and

Case 1:21-cr-O0560-CKK Document52 _ Filed 06/03/26 Page 6of9

avoid criminal thinking errors. Jd. at 4 (internal citation omitted). Furthermore, while
incarcerated, Mr. Sanchez has worked as a recreation specialist, unit orderly, and in food and
dining service. Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 43, at 5. Moreover, Mr. Sanchez’s custody classification
scoring was reduced sufficiently that he was moved from a high-security penitentiary (USP
Coleman I) to a medium-security federal correctional institution (FCI Hazelton). Jd.

Defendant reports also that he has made significant progress with his mental health
insofar as he sees a psychiatrist monthly and a psychologist weekly; he is compliant with his
psychotropic medications; and he has been stable enough for his care level to be reduced from
a CARE2-MH to a CARE1-MH. Id. Mr. Sanchez “believes that his current plan will continue
to work for him once he is released [as] [h]e has found a medication . . . and dosage that works
well for him and denies any issues or hallucinations.” Jd. Regarding post-incarceration care,
Mr. Sanchez could be linked with a “core services agency” within 30 days prior to his release,
or, if it is determined that he needs “assertive community treatment,” he would start that process
60 days prior to release. Jd. at 6. Additionally, Defendant notes that he regularly communicates
with his family and “now has the support system to foster successful release.” Jd.; see Ex. 3
(email from Mr. Sanchez’s parents affirming their support); see also Ex. 1. BOP Records at 12
(identifying family communication as “GOOD”). In sum, Defendant argues that he is “more
prepared for release than he was in 2020” and he notes that even if the Motion is granted,
Defendant still has more than a year of incarceration ahead of him to continue making progress
in his rehabilitation.

2. The Government’s Position

While the Court commends Mr. Sanchez for the progress he has made, the Government

argues, and this Court agrees, that the Section 3553(a) factors do not warrant a sentence

Case 1:21-cr-O0560-CKK Document52 _ Filed 06/03/26 Page 7 of 9

reduction because of defendant’s extensive criminal history and the fact that “his current
sentence remains within the amended guideline range.” Govt. Opp’n, ECF No. 48, at 10. While
Defendant asserts that the Government’s analysis “relies too heavily on his crime and criminal
history, both already accounted for in the range,” Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 50, at 1, the Court
notes that public safety is an integral part of its consideration. In this case, Defendant has
engaged in criminal activity demonstrating a pattern of threats and aggression, including simple
assault, threats to “stab the President” while possessing a box cutter, an “attempt to rob an
American Airlines ticket counter” while employing a pair of scissors and pointing them at a
victim, and the 2017 robbery of aTD Bank. Govt. Opp’n, ECF No. 48, at 8-9. While this Court
commends Defendant for his lack of disciplinary infractions during his current incarceration,
the Government notes that, previously, “defendant incurred no violations while incarcerated
[on the 2017 TD Bank robbery charge]” but he “was released from custody on November 27
2020 [and] a mere three days later, he committed the instant offense.” Jd. at 10. The
Government asserts that “while defendant may generally behave appropriately in the highly
restricted environment of a federal prison, he has repeatedly demonstrated that he poses a
serious danger to others while in the broader community.” Govt. Opp’n, ECF No 48, at 12.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Section 3553(a) factors do not favor a reduction in sentence
as the Court is unconvinced that Defendant poses no danger to the community. Defendant’s
criminal history and the nature and circumstances of his bank robbery offense demonstrate both
escalation and recidivist tendencies. Furthermore, after a period where Mr. Sanchez also
incurred no infractions while incarcerated, he then engaged in criminal activity just days after

his release.

Moreover, while the Court commends Defendant for compliance with mental health

Case 1:21-cr-O0560-CKK Document52 _ Filed 06/03/26 Page 8 of 9

treatment and medication, the Court considers Defendant’s relatively brief period of compliance
against Defendant’s years of non-compliance. The Court finds that this imbalance also weighs
against a sentence reduction because of community safety concerns (even when considering
that as-yet-undetermined mental health services are available to Defendant post-release).

Additionally, as the Government notes, Defendant’s current sentence of 77 months is
within the amended Guidelines range, albeit at the high end. The Government explains,
however, that “many courts have denied sentence reductions in situation where guideline
amendments lowered the sentencing ranges.” Govt. Opp’n, ECF No. 48, at 7 (string citing
circuit court and district court cases). In response to this argument, Defendant engages in a
lengthy discussion about the “anchoring effect of the guidelines range” to argue for a sentence
at the low end of the guideline range. Def.’s Reply, ECF No 50, at 1-4. In this case, however,
the Court determined that a 77-month sentence (which happened to be at the low end of the
prior applicable range) was appropriate considering the record in this case, and that sentence
remains appropriate.

While Defendant also relies upon his educational and work endeavors, and the
rebuilding of his relationship with his parents — all of which are commendable — none justify a
sentence reduction. As the Government notes, “[p]risoners are supposed to follow the rules,
take classes, work at a job, and otherwise attempt to improve themselves,” Govt. Opp’n, ECF
No. 48, at 10 (citing United States v. Logan, 97-CR-0099, 2021 WL 1221481, at *8 (D. Minn.
Ar. 1,2021). “That a prisoner does so means that he has met baseline expectations, not that he
has done something extraordinary...” Jd.

Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Government that there is no evidence that

Defendant’s family is better equipped to support him post-incarceration than when he engaged

Case 1:21-cr-O0560-CKK Document52 _ Filed 06/03/26 Page 9of9

in criminal activity in the past. See Ex. 3 (a one-paragraph email from Defendant’s parents,
noting generally that “their home will always be open” to Defendant and that they will “always
help and support him” but proffering no specifics on how they intend to assist Mr. Sanchez).
Accordingly, having considered the record in this case and the arguments presented by
the parties, in its discretion, this Court declines to reduce Defendant’s sentence. A separate

Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion

7 _
CA 4 Aa - seat
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE