USA v. Alvarado-Calderon, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
EDWAR JOSE SALAZAR-BELLEDA
(10),
Defendant.
Case No. 21-20008-10-DDC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendant Edwar Jose Salazar-Belleda has filed a pro se1 Motion for Adjustment of
Sentence (Doc. 334). 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. Salazar-Belleda asserts that the Sentencing Commission lowered his
sentence with the retroactive Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Amendment 821 created U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, which provides for a two-level decrease in a
defendant’s offense level if the defendant (1) has zero criminal-history points and (2) meets
certain criteria. Here, Mr. Salazar-Belleda has zero criminal-history points. Doc. 291 at 45 (PSR
¶ 158). But he doesn’t meet the rest of § 4C1.1’s criteria. To benefit from a zero-point
adjustment, a defendant must not have “possess[ed] . . . a firearm or other dangerous weapon
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 2:21-cr-20008-DDC Document 393 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 3

2
. . . in connection with the offense[.]” U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(7). Mr. Salazar-Belleda possessed a
firearm in furtherance of the drug-trafficking crime to which he pleaded guilty. Doc. 291 at 35,
44 (PSR ¶¶ 105, 143). So, Mr. Salazar-Belleda isn’t eligible for Amendment 821. See United
States v. Foy, No. 07-20168-04-JWL, 2024 WL 1604634, at *2 (D. Kan. Apr. 12, 2024) (finding
defendant ineligible for Amendment 821 where defendant was convicted on drug charges and
had zero criminal-history points but “received a two-level enhancement for possessing a firearm
in connection with his offense”).
Because Amendment 821 doesn’t lower Mr. Salazar-Belleda’s Guideline range, the court
lacks jurisdiction to reduce his sentence. United States v. C.D., 848 F.3d 1286, 1289 (10th Cir.
2017) (explaining that, to secure sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), “the defendant 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”).
The court thus dismisses the Motion for Adjustment of Sentence (Doc. 334). It also grants the
Motion for Status Update (Doc. 362) and provides this Order to Mr. Salazar-Belleda as the
update on the request made in his motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the Motion for Adjustment
of Sentence (Doc. 334) is dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Motion for Status Update (Doc. 362) is
granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 2:21-cr-20008-DDC Document 393 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Dated this 18th day of December, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Case 2:21-cr-20008-DDC Document 393 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 3