USA v. Felix-Polendo et al

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 3:17-cr-00148-PDW Document198_ Filed 04/08/24 Page1of3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA

EASTERN DIVISION
United States of America, )
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

) REDUCE SENTENCE
VS. )

) Case No. 3:17-cr-148(1)
Guadalupe Alejandro Felix-Polendo, )
)
Defendant. )

Defendant Guadalupe Alejandro Felix-Polendo moves for a sentence reduction under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Doc. 194.
The United States opposes the motion. Doc. 197. For the reasons below, the motion is denied.

In 2018, Felix-Polendo pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy charges. Docs. 96, 97. The
presentence investigation report calculated his sentencing range as 135 to 168 months, based on a
total offense level of 33 and a criminal history category I. Doc. 128. He received no status points
under United States Sentencing Guideline § 4A1.1(d) and had no criminal history points. Id. But
he was subject to a 120-month statutory mandatory minimum. So, Felix-Polendo was sentenced to
120 months in prison. Docs. 134, 135.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2):

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(0), upon motion of the defendant or the

Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 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.

This exception to the general rule that a court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has

been imposed “represents a congressional act of lenity intended to give prisoners the benefit of

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

2
later enacted adjustments to the judgments reflected in the Guidelines.” Dillon v. United States,
560 U.S. 817, 828 (2010). But the exception is limited; it “does not authorize a resentencing.” Id.
at 831. “It permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by the Commission.”
Id. In deciding whether to reduce a sentence based on a retroactive amendment to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court must first consider the scope of the
reduction authorized by the amendment and then consider whether such a reduction is warranted
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826.
Felix-Polendo generally seeks a sentence reduction under Parts A and B of Amendment
821. But neither Part provides relief. As to Part A, this portion of Amendment 821 lowers the
number of “status points” received under United States Sentencing Guideline § 4A1.1 for
individuals who commit their offense while under a criminal justice sentence. Felix-Polendo
received no status points, so he is not eligible for a sentencing reduction under Part A of
Amendment 821.
As to Part B, this portion of Amendment 821 provides an offense level reduction for “zero-
point” offenders, who are offenders with no criminal history points. See U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a).
While Felix-Polendo meets that requirement, the reduction does not provide relief because he is
subject to a 120-month statutory mandatory minimum. So, Part B of Amendment 821 provides no
relief.
After extensive review the entire record and the relevant legal authority, Felix-Polendo’s
motion to reduce sentence (Doc. 194) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 8th day of April, 2024.
/s/ Peter D. Welte
Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge
Case 3:17-cr-00148-PDW Document 198 Filed 04/08/24 Page 2 of 3

Case 3:17-cr-00148-PDW Document198_ Filed 04/08/24 Page 3of3

United States District Court