USA v. Garcia-Rodriguez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 07-20099-04-JWL
Yehia Hassen,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
In July 2009, defendant Yehia Hassen, pursuant to a plea agreement with the government,
entered a plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 1000
kilograms or more of marijuana and 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and attempted money
laundering. The court ultimately sentenced defendant to 324 months imprisonment. Defendant
appealed his conviction and sentence to the Tenth Circuit, but later voluntarily dismissed that
appeal. The court denied defendant’s subsequent § 2255 petition.
In July 2024, defendant filed a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §§
3582(c)(1)(a) and (c)(2). 	In pertinent part, he asked the court to reduce his sentence under
Amendment 821 as a zero-point offender. Defendant acknowledged in his motion that he had one
criminal history point, but he argued that the point “shouldn’t count” because it was for an old
misdemeanor, and he had taken a class to clear it from his record. The court held that it was not
authorized to remove the scoreable point and dismissed that aspect of defendant’s motion for lack
of jurisdiction on the grounds that defendant was not a zero-point offender and was not eligible
for relief. 	The Tenth Circuit expressly affirmed that decision on appeal, holding that the court
Case 2:07-cr-20099-JWL-TJJ Document 1232 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 3

2
correctly declined to apply Amendment 821 because it was required to use the same calculation
of criminal history points that it had used at the initial sentencing in determining whether
Amendment 821 applied. United States v. Hassen, 2025 WL 1937506, at *2 (10th Cir. July 15,
2025).
This matter is presently before the court on defendant’s fourth motion for a sentence
reduction (doc. 1228). In that motion, defendant argues only that the court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), should reduce his sentence under Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines. He makes the same argument that he did before this court and before the Circuit—
that his one criminal history point should not count. Because the Tenth Circuit has already
examined and resolved the argument that defendant again pursues in this court, the court may not
consider the merits of his argument. See United States v. Trent, 884 F.3d 985, 994-95 (10th Cir.
2018) (law of the case doctrine precludes court from considering arguments that were raised and
adjudicated on appeal).1 Thus, because the reduction is not authorized, the court lacks jurisdiction
to reduce defendant’s sentence under Amendment 821. The motion, then, is dismissed.2
1 While there are narrow exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine, none are present here. See
Trent, 884 F.3d at 994-95 (exceptions include when the evidence in a subsequent trial is
substantially different; when controlling authority has subsequently made a contrary decision of
the law applicable to such issues; or when the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a
manifest injustice).
2 In his reply brief, defendant makes additional arguments that are unrelated to Amendment 821,
including that he has rehabilitated himself while in custody; that his counsel was ineffective at
sentencing; that his “punishment” for absconding was too severe; and that he should not have
received a managerial role enhancement. 	Because these arguments are all beyond the scope of
defendant’s 3582(c)(2) motion, the court declines to address them. See United States v. Brown,
556 F.3d 1108, 1113 (10th Cir. 2009) (“A § 3582(c)(2) motion does not provide the district court
with the opportunity to begin the entire sentencing process anew, but rather the district court’s
discretionary authority is expressly limited by the scope of § 3582(c).”) ; see also Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. 817, 825–27 (2010) (explaining the narrow scope of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings).
Case 2:07-cr-20099-JWL-TJJ Document 1232 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant’s motion to
reduce sentence (doc. 1228) is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 2nd day of December, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/John W. Lungstrum
HON. JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 2:07-cr-20099-JWL-TJJ Document 1232 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 3