USA v. Banales et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ESTEVAN ACOSTA (04),
Defendant.
Case No. 22-20008-04-DDC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendant Estevan Acosta has filed a pro se1 Motion to Reduce Sentence (Doc. 127).
The motion invokes 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which authorizes the court to reduce a 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[.]” Mr. Acosta asserts
that the Sentencing Commission lowered his sentence with the retroactive Amendment 821 to
the Sentencing Guidelines. Mr. Acosta invokes Amendment 821’s Zero-Point Offender
provision, which reduces a defendant’s offense level by two levels if a defendant has zero
criminal-history points and meets other criteria. U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1.
Amendment 821 took effect on November 1, 2023. The Probation Office filed Mr.
Acosta’s Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) on April 16, 2024. See generally Doc. 104.
The PSR calculates Mr. Acosta’s criminal-history score of zero, id. at 17 (PSR ¶ 70), and applies
1 	People in prison “who proceed pro se . . . are entitled to liberal construction of their filings[.]”
Toevs v. Reid, 685 F.3d 903, 911 (10th Cir. 2012); see also Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th
Cir. 1991).
Case 2:22-cr-20008-DDC Document 144 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 2

2
the Zero-Point Offender provision, id. at 15 (PSR ¶ 58). The court adopted the PSR without
change at sentencing. Doc. 107 at 1.
So, Mr. Acosta already has received the benefit of Amendment 821, and the court may
not reduce his sentence. United States v. C.D., 848 F.3d 1286, 1289 (10th Cir. 2017) (explaining
that defendant, to secure sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), “must show he was sentenced
based on a guideline range the Sentencing Commission lowered subsequent to defendant’s
sentencing” and if the defendant fails to make this showing, “the district court lacks jurisdiction
over the defendant’s motion and the motion must be dismissed”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant Estevan
Acosta’s Motion to Reduce Sentence (Doc. 127) is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 17th day of December, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree______
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Case 2:22-cr-20008-DDC Document 144 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 2