USA v. Chavez-Gutierrez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Criminal Case No. 18-cr-00328-PAB-6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
6. MICHAEL BENITEZ-LOPEZ,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Reduction of Sentence [Docket
No. 596] filed by defendant Michael Benitez-Lopez. 1 On August 9, 2019, Mr. Benitez-
Lopez was convicted after a jury trial of conspiring to violate federal drug laws in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1), using a communication facility for the
commission of a felony drug offense in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (Count 8), and
possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute it in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 10). Docket No. 300. On November 1, 2019, the Court
sentenced Mr. Benitez-Lopez to 180 months imprisonment for Count 1, 48 months
imprisonment for Count 8, and 180 months for Count 10, to run concurrently. Docket
No. 484 at 31:10-14, 18-19, 22-23; see also Docket No. 422 at 2. At sentencing, the
Court found the total offense level to be 36 and determined Mr. Benitez-Lopez’s
1 Because Mr. Benitez-Lopez is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his filing
liberally without serving as his advocate. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th
Cir. 1991).
Case No. 1:18-cr-00328-PAB Document 604 filed 04/15/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 5

2
Criminal History Category to be IV, which resulted in an imprisonment guideline range
of 262 to 327 months. Docket No. 484 at 20:1-4; see also Docket No. 423 at 1. Mr.
Benitez-Lopez is currently incarcerated at FCI Big Spring, a low security federal
correctional institute in Texas. See Federal Bureau of Prisons, Inmate Locator,
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. Mr. Benitez-Lopez’s projected release date is
September 9, 2030. Id.
On March 18, 2024, Mr. Benitez-Lopez filed a pro se motion for a reduction in his
sentence based on Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Docket No. 596.
On August 21, 2024, the government filed a response, arguing that Mr. Benitez-Lopez is
not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 because he was not a
“zero-point offender” at the time of sentencing and that his sentencing guideline range is
unaffected by Amendment 821. Docket No. 600 at 1.
Generally, a federal court may not alter a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
An exception to this general rule is set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A court may
reduce a defendant’s sentence “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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o).” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) “establishes a two-step inquiry.” Dillon, 560 U.S. at
826. “At step one, § 3582(c)(2) requires the court to follow the Commission’s
instructions in [USSG] § 1B1.10 to determine the prisoner’s eligibility for a sentence
modification and the extent of the reduction authorized.” Id. at 827. “At step two of the
inquiry, § 3582(c)(2) instructs a court to consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and
Case No. 1:18-cr-00328-PAB Document 604 filed 04/15/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 5

3
determine 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.” Id.
On November 1, 2023, the Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 821 to
the Sentencing Guidelines in order to “make[ ] targeted changes to reduce the impact of
providing additional criminal history points for offenders under a criminal justice
sentence (commonly known as “status points”), to reduce recommended guideline
ranges for offenders with zero criminal history points under the guidelines (“zero-point
offenders”), and to recognize the changing legal landscape as it pertains to simple
possession of marihuana offenses.” See U.S.S.G., Supp. to App. C., Amend. 821 (U.S.
Sentencing Comm’n 2023). Before November 2023, the Sentencing Guidelines
assessed two criminal history points, known as “status points,” for an offense committed
“while under any criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised
release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status.” United States v. Espinoza-
Pena, 2024 WL 1675672, at *1 (D.N.M. Apr. 18, 2024) (citing U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d)
(2022)). In Part A of Amendment 821, the Sentencing Commission altered the “status
points” provision such that a person who has seven or more criminal history points now
receives only one additional “status point,” instead of two. Id. In addition, a person with
six or fewer criminal history points now receives no status points. Id. Amendment 821
applies retroactively. Id.; United States v. Stites, 2024 WL 3535120, at *1 (D. Kan. July
24, 2024).
Mr. Benitez-Lopez argues that Part A of Amendment 821 altered his sentencing
guideline range by reducing his status points. Docket No. 596 at 3-5. Mr. Benitez-
Case No. 1:18-cr-00328-PAB Document 604 filed 04/15/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 5

4
Lopez maintains that, pursuant to Amendment 821, he would be in Criminal History
Category IV, with the relevant guideline range being 135 to 188 months imprisonment.
Id. at 4. The Court disagrees. Mr. Benitez-Lopez had a criminal history score of seven.
Docket No. 407 at 19, ¶ 71. Because Mr. Benetez-Lopez has seven criminal history
points, he does not qualify as a “zero-point offender” who would be eligible for a
decrease of two offense levels. See United States v. Espinoza, No. 21-cr-00250-WJM,
2024 WL 4108576, at *1 (D. Colo. Sept. 6, 2024) (“Part B of Amendment 821 creates a
new guideline, § 4C1.1, which provides for a decrease of two offense levels for ‘Zero-
Point Offenders.’”). However, Mr. Benitez-Lopez further received a two-level
enhancement for committing the offenses while under a criminal justice sentence, which
is affected by Amendment 821. Docket No. 407 at 19, ¶ 72; Docket No. 484 at 19:1-
20:6. Mr. Benitez-Lopez’s total criminal history points have changed from nine to eight
through the retroactive application of Amendment 821 because it modifies the two-level
enhancement to a one-level enhancement. Criminal History Category IV includes
between seven and nine criminal history points. See Sentencing Table, U.S.S.G. ch. 5,
pt. A (2018). As such, Mr. Benitez-Lopez remains in Criminal History Category IV, and,
with an offense level of 36, his guideline range is 262 to 327 months imprisonment. Id.
This is the same advisory guideline range that the Court found at his sentencing
hearing. Docket No. 484 at 20:1-6; Docket No. 423 at 1. Accordingly, the Court finds
that Amendment 821 does not affect Mr. Benitez-Lopez’s sentence and he is not eligible
for a reduction in his sentence. 2
2 Because the Court finds that Mr. Benitez-Lopez is not eligible for a reduction in
his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), it will not consider Mr. Benitez-Lopez’s
Case No. 1:18-cr-00328-PAB Document 604 filed 04/15/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 5

5
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Motion for Reduction of Sentence [Docket No. 596] is
DENIED. 3
DATED April 15, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
arguments regarding the calculation of a downward departure. See Docket No. 596 at
6-9.
3 Mr. Benitez-Lopez requests that counsel be appointed to “assist with his Motion
Reduction of Sentencing.” Docket No. 596 at 2. Because the Court will deny Mr.
Benitez-Lopez’s motion for a reduction of his sentence, it will deny his request that
counsel be appointed.
_______________________	__ ______
Case No. 1:18-cr-00328-PAB Document 604 filed 04/15/25 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 5