USA v. Nunez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Case No. 2:25-cr-00394-MIS
SERGIO NUNEZ,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Sergio Nunez’s pro se Motion for
Sentence Reduction (“Motion”), ECF No. 37, filed December 19, 2025. The Government did not
respond.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court may reduce the term of imprisonment 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o)’ and
made retroactive pursuant to § 994(u).” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010) (quoting
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). See also United States v. Piper, 839 F.3d 1261, 1266 (10th Cir. 2016)
(“Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes a district court to reduce an otherwise final sentence under a
Guidelines amendment if the reduction is consistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, the Sentencing
Commission’s relevant policy statement, and after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a).”). Only the amendments listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) have been made retroactive. See
United States v. Ramirez, 698 F. App’x 943, 945 (10th Cir. 2017) (“Amendment 794 is not among
the covered amendments listed in § 1B1.10(d) and thus has not been made retroactive by the
Sentencing Commission.”); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2) (“A reduction in the defendant’s term
of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under
Case 2:25-cr-00394-MIS Document 39 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if . . . [n]one of the amendments listed in subsection (d) is applicable to the
defendant[.]”). Thus, “[e]ligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered
only by an amendment listed in subsection (d) that lowers the applicable guideline range . . . .”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 Appl. Note 1.
Here, Defendant requests “a sentence reduction, based on Amendment 2025; USSG
Section 2D1.1(a)(5), Section 2D1.1(e)(2).” Mot. at 1. The Court construes Defendant’s request
as a motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), seeking retroactive application
of Amendment 833 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, effective November 1, 2025,
which, inter alia, amended U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(a)(5) and (e)(2). See United States Sentencing
Commission, Amendment 833, https://perma.cc/TGR9-7UMZ.
However, Amendment 833 is not among the covered amendments listed in § 1B1.10(d) and
thus has not been made retroactive by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Kleinknecht,
4:21-CR-3066, 2025 WL 3678479, at *1 (D. Neb. Dec. 18, 2025) (observing that “[t]he Sentencing
Commission considered whether to make Amend. 833 retroactive . . . [b]ut after public notice and
comment, the Commission decided not to”) (first citing Sentencing Guidelines for United States
Courts, 90 Fed. Reg. 19798, 19856, 2025 WL 1373272 (May 9, 2025), then citing U.S. Sentencing
Comm’n Pub. Meeting Minutes, https://perma.cc/TXT3-7ZUT (Aug. 6, 2025)). Consequently,
Defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See id. (“Because
Amend. 833 is not retroactive, the Court cannot apply it pursuant to § 3582(c)(2).”); United States
v. Leones, CASE NO: 8:20-cr-138-CEH-AAS, 2025 WL 3537608, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2025)
(finding that because Amendment 833 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), “the Court may not
retroactively apply it to a defendant who is serving a term of imprisonment in order to reduce his
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)”); United States v. Ramirez-Roman, No. CR-21-01384-
Case 2:25-cr-00394-MIS Document 39 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
001-TUC-JCH (EJM), 2025 WL 3718464, at *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 23, 2025) (finding that Amendment
833 is not retroactive and that the defendant therefore was not entitled to a sentence reduction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction,
ECF No. 37, is DENIED.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cr-00394-MIS Document 39 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 3