USA v. Valdez-Garcia

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Criminal Case No. 18-cr-561-WJM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
2. 	KARLA RIVAS-SAENZ.
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Karla Rivas-Saenz’s Motion for
Reduction [of] Sentence Pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(2) (ECF No. 185)
(“Motion”). The Government filed a response. (ECF No. 189.) Defendant did not file a
reply.
For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.
I. 	BACKGROUND
In August 2020, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of Use of Communication
Facility in Causing or Facilitating the Commission of Felonies Under the Controlled
Substances Act, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(b) and (d). (ECF No. 179 at ¶ 2; ECF No.
183 at 1.) In November 2023, the Court sentenced Defendant to a term of
imprisonment of 36 months. (ECF No. 183 at 2.) In the Presentence Investigation
Report, adopted as modified by the Court, Defendant received a total criminal history
Case No. 1:18-cr-00561-WJM Document 190 filed 03/17/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

2
score of zero. (ECF No. 179 at ¶ 50; ECF No. 184 at 1.) As of filing the Motion,
Defendant states her projected release date is December 7, 2025. (ECF No. 185 at 1.)
II. 	APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court may modify the sentence
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. § 944(o), upon motion of the
defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons [“BOP”],
or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of
imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in
section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such
a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.
The Sentencing Guidelines, in turn, direct that:
A reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not
consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not
authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if—
(A) none of the amendments listed in subsection (d) is
applicable to the defendant; or
(B) an amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have
the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline
range.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2) (2024 ed.).
To determine “whether, and to what extent, a reduction in the defendant’s term of
imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and [U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10] is warranted,”
courts must “determine the amended guideline range that would have been applicable
to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines . . . had been in effect at the
time the defendant was sentenced.” § 1B1.10(b)(1). Absent exception, however,
courts “shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment . . . to a term that is less
than the minimum of the amended guideline range . . . .” § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). This
Case No. 1:18-cr-00561-WJM Document 190 filed 03/17/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3
limitation also applies “[i]f the term of imprisonment imposed was outside the guideline
range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing,” such as where the
sentence “constitut[ed] a downward departure or variance.” § 1B1.10, cmt. 3.
III. 	ANALYSIS
Defendant asks the Court to reduce her sentence in accordance with
Amendment 821 and its incorporation of a new provision relating to offense level
adjustments for “zero-point offenders.” § 1B1.10(d), cmt. 7; § 4C1.1(a). That provision
instructs that courts should “decrease the offense level determined under Chapters Two
and Three” of the Sentencing Guidelines “by 2 levels” if, among ten additional criteria,
“the defendant did not receive any criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A.”
§ 4C1.1(a).
Defendant is correct that she is a “zero-point offender.” See Section I infra. But
she is not entitled to a further sentence reduction because the Court took into account
the zero-point offender provision—that is, the Court already applied a two-level
decrease in her offense level—when sentencing her in November 2023. (ECF No. 184
at 1.)
Defendant appears to mistakenly believe she received a 36-month sentence
because her total offense level at sentencing was a “level 19 with guideline range of 30
months to 37-months.” (ECF No. 185 at 1.) In actuality, Defendant’s total offense
level—after taking into account the two offense-level reduction for her zero-point
offender status—was a 26 at Criminal History Category I, for which the applicable
sentencing range was 48 months. (ECF No. 184 at 1.) Defendant ultimately received a
36-month sentence because, on the defense’s motion, the Court applied a further
Case No. 1:18-cr-00561-WJM Document 190 filed 03/17/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

4
downward variance to the minimum sentencing ranger for her offense level. (Id. at 3.)
So, because Defendant has already received the benefit of Amendment 821, her
Motion is denied.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction (ECF No.
185) is DENIED.
Dated this 17 th day of March, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
William J. Martínez
Senior United States District Judge
Case No. 1:18-cr-00561-WJM Document 190 filed 03/17/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4