USA v. Wang

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RUI MAE WANG,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CR-22-00240-JD
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Defendant Rui Mae Wang, appearing pro se, filed a motion for reduction of
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (“Motion”). [Doc. No. 124]. In her Motion, Ms.
Wang requests that her case be evaluated for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821
to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Motion at 1. Assistant Federal Public
Defender Laura K. Deskin, in accordance with this District’s General Order 23-6, filed a
Notice Regarding Defendant’s Ineligibility for Reduction of Sentence Under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) Based on the Retroactive Application of USSG Amendment 821 [Doc. No.
131 at 2], asserting that “Amendment 821 was already applied to Ms. Wang” and the
“two-level reduction in [USSG] § 5C1.2 . . . [was] accordingly deducted from her
guideline range.” The United States responded to the Motion [Doc. No. 128], asserting
that Ms. Wang already received the benefit of Amendment 821 at her sentencing. The
United States Probation Office (“USPO”) filed a Preliminary Report for Consideration of
Sentence Reduction Based on Amendment 821 [Doc. No. 125], likewise asserting that
Case 5:22-cr-00240-JD Document 132 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Ms. Wang is ineligible for sentencing relief because the Court applied the adjustment for
zero-point offender at Ms. Wang’s sentencing hearing.
For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses the Motion for lack of
jurisdiction because Ms. Wang is not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2)
having already received the benefit of Amendment 821 at her sentencing hearing.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2023, Ms. Wang entered a plea of guilty to the one-count Superseding
Information charging her with drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. [Doc.
Nos. 59, 68–73]. On November 28, 2023, the USPO filed the Final Presentence
Investigation Report (“PSR”). [Doc. No. 79]. The PSR assigned a base offense level of
32. PSR ¶ 28. Two levels were added to the base offense level under USSG
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) because the offense involved possession of a firearm. Id. ¶ 29. Two levels
were also added to the base offense level under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12) because Ms. Wang
“maintained a premises for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance.” Id. ¶ 30.
Two levels were deducted because of Ms. Wang’s safety-valve eligibility under USSG
§§ 2D1.1(b)(18) and 5C1.2, resulting in an adjusted offense level of 34. Id. ¶¶ 31, 35. Ms.
Wang met the criteria at USSG § 4C1.1(a)(1)–(10) to qualify for a zero-point offender
adjustment, and the offense level was reduced another two levels. Id. ¶ 35a. After a three-
level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the PSR calculated a total offense level
of 29. Id. ¶¶ 37–39.
The PSR calculated a total criminal history score of zero for Ms. Wang, placing
her in a criminal history category of I. Id. ¶ 43. Based on a total offense level of 29 and a
Case 5:22-cr-00240-JD Document 132 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 6

3
criminal history category of I, the PSR calculated Ms. Wang’s advisory guideline range
for imprisonment at 87 months to 108 months. Id. ¶ 72.
At the sentencing hearing held on May 8, 2024, the Court sustained Ms. Wang’s
out-of-time objection to paragraph 28 of the PSR, agreeing with the stipulated drug
amount in the plea agreement, which corresponded to a base offense level of 30. [Doc.
No. 100 at 1]; see also [Doc. No. 97 at 1]. The Court thus calculated the advisory
guideline range of imprisonment at 70 months to 87 months. [Doc. No. 100 at 1]. The
Court sentenced Ms. Wang to a term of imprisonment of 42 months, reflecting a
downward variance from the advisory guideline range. Judgment at 2 [Doc. No. 99 at 2];
see also [Doc. No. 100 at 3]. Ms. Wang now seeks a reduction in her sentence based on
Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See Motion at 1.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Congress has authorized courts to modify prison sentences only under limited
circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); United States v. Mendoza, 118 F.3d 707, 709
(10th Cir. 1997) (explaining that district courts lack inherent authority to modify a
previously imposed sentence absent statutory authorization); United States v. Blackwell,
81 F.3d 945, 947 (10th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that a “district court is authorized to
modify [the defendant’s] sentence only in specified instances where Congress has
expressly granted the court jurisdiction to do so”).
One basis of authority is 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which 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
Case 5:22-cr-00240-JD Document 132 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Commission . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In such a case, the Court “may” reduce a
sentence if doing so would be consistent with the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
See id.
“Section 3582(c)(2) prescribes a two-step process.” United States v. Battle, 706
F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013). At step one, the district court must follow the
Sentencing Commission’s “instructions in [USSG] § 1B1.10 to determine the prisoner’s
eligibility for a sentence modification and the extent of the reduction authorized.” United
States v. Piper, 839 F.3d 1261, 1266 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Dillon v. United States,
560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010)); see United States v. White, 765 F.3d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir.
2014) (explaining that the first step, “a matter of law, is whether a sentence reduction is
even authorized”). At step two, the district court considers whether such reduction “is
warranted in whole or in part” based on the applicable § 3553(a) factors and policy
statements. Piper, 839 F.3d at 1266; see White, 765 F.3d at 1245 (explaining that the
second step, “a matter of discretion, is whether an authorized reduction is in fact
warranted”). Additionally, the district court “‘may consider’ the defendant’s post-
sentencing conduct.” United States v. Osborn, 679 F.3d 1193, 1195 (10th Cir. 2012)
(quoting USSG § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B)(iii)). Section 3582(c)(2), however, does not
provide a new sentencing proceeding. See Piper, 839 F.3d at 1266 (explaining that
§ 3582(c)(2)’s process “authorize[s] only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final
sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding” (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted)).
Case 5:22-cr-00240-JD Document 132 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Ms. Wang seeks a sentence reduction under Amendment 821. See Motion at 1.
Amendment 821 took effect on November 1, 2023, and applies retroactively. Part A of
Amendment 821 limits the criminal history impact of “status points.” Part B created a
new guideline at USSG § 4C1.1, which provides for a decrease of two levels to the
offense level for zero-point offenders who meet all 10 criteria listed in § 4C1.1(a). See
USSG Suppl. to App. C, Amend. 821 (Part B) (Zero-Point Offenders); see also USSG
§ 4C1.1(a) (Nov. 2023). Ms. Wang did not receive any status points. See PSR ¶¶ 40–43.
As noted above, she had zero criminal history points and met all the criteria listed at
§ 4C1.1(a). See PSR ¶¶ 35a, 43; see also [Doc. No. 100 at 1]. As a result, her adjusted
offense level was decreased by two levels to account for Part B of Amendment 821
before application of the three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. PSR
¶ 35a. After the Court sustained her objection to paragraph 28, her advisory guideline
range of imprisonment was 70 months to 87 months (total offense level of 27 and a
criminal history category of I). [Doc. No. 100 at 1].
Without application of Amendment 821, her advisory guideline range of
imprisonment would have been 87 months to 108 months (total offense level of 29 and a
criminal history category of I). Additionally, the Court varied below the reduced advisory
guideline range of 70 to 87 months by sentencing Ms. Wang to a term of imprisonment of
42 months. Accordingly, because Ms. Wang received the benefit of Amendment 821 at
sentencing, a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is not warranted.
Accordingly, because no reduction is authorized, the Court lacks jurisdiction under
§ 3582(c)(2) to modify Ms. Wang’s sentence and dismisses the Motion. See White, 765
Case 5:22-cr-00240-JD Document 132 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 6

6
F.3d at 1250 (explaining that where a defendant is “ineligible to receive a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c)(2), . . . dismissal for lack of jurisdiction rather than denial on
the merits is the appropriate disposition”); see also United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 755 F.
App’x 811, 813 (10th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (affirming the district court’s dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction where Amendment 782 did not affect the defendant’s guideline
range).
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendant Rui Mae Wang’s pro se motion for reduction of sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) [Doc. No. 124] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of January 2026.
Case 5:22-cr-00240-JD Document 132 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 6