USA v. Ruiz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
NICKEY JOSE RUIZ,
Defendant.
______________________________/
Case No. 1:11-cr-233
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s pro se motion for modification or reduction
of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Guideline Amendment No. 821) and request for
appointment of counsel (ECF No. 200, corrected by 203). For the following reasons, the Court
denies the motion.1
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant pleaded guilty to Counts One through Four of the Second Superseding
Indictment. Count One charged him with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and 18 U.S.C. § 921(a). Count Two charged Defendant with possession of a
stolen firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(J) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Count Three charged
him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base and
500 grams or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(iii). Count
1 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 requires that a defendant be present at “sentencing,” see
Rule 43(a)(3), but excludes from that requirement a proceeding that “involves the correction or
reduction of sentence under … 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).” F ED. R. CRIM . P. 43(b)(4).
Case 1:11-cr-00233-JMB ECF No. 208, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 1 of
5

2
Four charged Defendant with contempt of court in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) and 18 U.S.C.
§ 3148(a) (Amended Presentence Report [Amended PSR, ECF No. 105, filed under restricted
access] ¶ 7). Defendant’s criminal history subtotal was seven, and he was given two additional
points for “commit[ting] the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence,” which made
Defendant’s total criminal history score nine (id. ¶¶ 78–80). The criminal history score of nine
established a criminal history category of IV (id. ¶ 80). He was designated as a career offender;
therefore, his criminal history category became VI (id. ¶ 81). Based upon Defendant’s total offense
level of 42 and criminal history category of VI, the guideline imprisonment range was calculated
in the Amended PSR as 360 months to life.
At the September 20, 2012 sentencing hearing before the Hon. Janet T. Neff, the Court
addressed multiple objections to the scoring. Following the rulings on the objections, the Court
determined Defendant’s total offense level to be 38 and his criminal history category remained at
VI, with the guideline range for imprisonment remaining at 360 months to life (ECF No. 112 at
PageID.569). Defendant was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment as to each of Counts One
and Two, 240 months’ imprisonment as to Count Three, and 12 months’ imprisonment as to Count
Four, with all counts to be served concurrently, followed by 3 years of supervised release as to
each count, with all counts to be served concurrently (Minutes, ECF No.103; Judgment of
Sentence, ECF No. 108).
After Defendant’s Sentencing, in August 2023, the United States Sentencing Commission
submitted 	to 	Congress 	proposed 	changes 	to 	the 	federal 	sentencing 	guidelines, 	including
Amendment 821, which would have retroactive effect. 	On November 1, 2023, when Congress
failed to modify or reject Amendment 821, it became effective. Part A of Amendment 821 limits
the criminal history impact of “Status Points” in Sentencing Guidelines § 4A. 	United States
Case 1:11-cr-00233-JMB ECF No. 208, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 2 of
5

3
Sentencing Guideline (U.S.S.G.) § 4A1.1. 	Part B of Amendment 821 permits a two-level
reduction for defendants without any criminal history points from § 4A and an instant offense
without specified aggravating factors. U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1.
In October 2025, this case was reassigned to the undersigned (ECF No. 194). Defendant
filed the motion at bar on March 9, 2026, seeking retroactive application of Amendment 821 to
the Judgment of Sentence. 	Approximately one month later, Defendant submitted the motion in
proper form (ECF No. 203). Pursuant to the April 7, 2026 Order (ECF No. 205), the Probation
Office prepared a Report of Eligibility (ECF No. 206). 	Although the Report indicates that
Defendant appears potentially eligible for consideration of a modification of his sentence, it also
states that he would remain a criminal history category VI (id.). Following the Report, the parties
were provided an opportunity to file objections to the Report (ECF No. 207). 	A review of the
court record reveals that no such objections have been filed and the time to submit such a filing
has expired.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Motion Standard
A “court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except … 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.” 	18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). 	Section 3582(c) establishes a “two-step inquiry.” 	United States v. Jones, 980
F.3d1098, 1107 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010)).
First, a court must “determine that a reduction is consistent with [United States Sentencing
Guideline (U.S.S.G.)] § 1B1.10,” id., which provides in pertinent part the following:
In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment, and the guideline
range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an
Case 1:11-cr-00233-JMB ECF No. 208, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 3 of
5

4
amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (d) below, the court may
reduce 	the 	defendant’s 	term 	of 	imprisonment 	as 	provided 	by 	18 	U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), any such reduction in the
defendant’s term of imprisonment shall be consistent with this policy statement.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1).
Second, the court must “consider whether the authorized reduction is warranted, either in
whole or in part, according to the factors set forth in § 3553(a)[.]” Jones, supra. The § 3553(a)
factors are: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of
the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate deterrence
to criminal conduct, protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and provide the
defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional
treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the applicable
sentencing guidelines range; (5) any pertinent policy statement; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 	See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a).
“[C]ourts need not issue a written opinion engaging in a point-by-point rebuttal of every
argument for every sentence-modification motion; [r]ather, they can rely on their ‘professional
judgment’ about the amount of information they need to include in an order.” 	United States v.
Davis-Malone, 128 F.4th 829, 834 (6th Cir. 2025) (citing Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S.
109, 116 (2018), and United States v. Goodwin, 87 F.4th 321, 327 (6th Cir. 2023)).
B. Discussion
Defendant’s motion implicates Part A of Amendment 821. 	Defendant argues that his
sentence should be reduced because his presentence report included “Status Points” in the
Case 1:11-cr-00233-JMB ECF No. 208, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 4 of
5

5
calculation of his criminal history score (ECF No. 203 at PageID.1517).2 Defendant had two Status
Points added to his criminal history score under what was U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), bringing his total
to nine. 	Applying the changes to the guidelines reflected in U.S.S.G § 4A1.1(e), Defendant’s
Status Points decrease from two to one; however, the reduction in criminal history points would
not change Defendant’s criminal history category (see U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Part A: Sentencing Table),
particularly in light of the career offender designation, and his advisory sentencing guideline range
is therefore unchanged. Accordingly, Defendant is not entitled to a modification of his sentence
under 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 3582(c)(2), 	and 	his 	motion 	is 	properly 	denied. 	Under 	U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), “[a] reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not consistent with
this policy statement and therefore not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if...an Amendment
listed in subsection (d) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline
range.” Defendant’s motion fails at the first step of the analysis, and the Court does not reach the
§ 3553(a) factors. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826. Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s pro se motion for modification or reduction
of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Guideline Amendment No. 821) and request for
appointment of counsel (ECF No. 200, corrected by 203) is DENIED.
Dated: May 27, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
2 To the extent Defendant attempts to argue that his presentence report scored him as having zero
criminal history points, the Court finds that the presentence report scored a number of criminal
history points. In light of Defendant’s criminal history points, he is ineligible for a reduction under
Part B of Amendment 821.
Case 1:11-cr-00233-JMB ECF No. 208, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 5 of
5