2:25-cr-03452•USA v. Amaya
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No. 2:25-cr-03452-MIS DAVID AMAYA, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant David Amaya’s Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (“Motion”), ECF No. 32, filed May 29, 2026. Petitioner seeks a reduction of sentence pursuant to Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines “in relation to ‘Status Points’ and/or ‘zero-point offenders . . . .” Mot. at 1. Defendant also filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel “for him to better articulate his case” with regard to the Motion. ECF No. 33. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court may reduce the term of imprisonment 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 Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o)’ and made retroactive pursuant to § 994(u).” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). Defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction under Section 3582(c)(2) because Amendment 821 became effective before Defendant was sentenced. Specifically, Amendment 821 became effective November 1, 2023, see United States Sentencing Commission, Amend. 821, https://perma.cc/KP4H-HMYC, and Defendant was sentenced December 10, 2025, see Sentencing Minute Sheet, ECF No. 30; Judgment at 1, ECF No. 31. Thus, his sentencing range was not Case 2:25-cr-03452-MIS Document 35 Filed 06/03/26 Page 1 of 2
2 “subsequently lowered” by Amendment 821, Dillon, 560 U.S. at 824, and he is not entitled to a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, ECF No. 32, is DENIED. Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 33, is DENIED AS MOOT. …………………………………………. MARGARET STRICKLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 2:25-cr-03452-MIS Document 35 Filed 06/03/26 Page 2 of 2
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.