USA v. Bonilla et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
-against-
RANDALL MARTINEZ,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 1:08-cr-00242-FB-14
Appearances:
For the Government:
DANIEL J. MARCUS
Assistant United States Attorney
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 1120
For the Defendant:
RANDALL MARTINEZ, pro se
61561-066
Yazoo City Low Federal Correctional
Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 5000
Yazoo City, MS 39194
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Defendant Randall Martinez again moves for a reduced sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). For the following reasons, Martinez’s motion is DENIED.
Martinez took part in “a sprawling conspiracy in and around New York City,
spanning at least a decade, in which more than two dozen persons are alleged to
have committed more than 200 robberies of drug traffickers.” United States v.
Martinez, 862 F.3d 223, 230 (2d Cir. 2017), cert. granted, judgment vacated sub
nom. Rodriguez v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2772 (2019). Martinez pleaded guilty
to robbery conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), narcotics trafficking
Case 1:08-cr-00242-AMD Document 1510 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, use of a firearm in furtherance of those
conspiracies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and attempt to commit § 1951
Hobbs Act robbery that caused the death of the intended robbery victim. Martinez
was sentenced to 264 months of incarceration. Martinez has now served over
eleven years and has a projected release date of November 5, 2027.
On October 24, 2023, Martinez filed a pro se motion for compassionate
release, which the Court denied in a June 26, 2024 order. ECF No. 1489. He argued
that he was entitled to relief for three reasons: (1) he would have received a lower
sentence under updated sentencing guidelines; (2) he was entitled to “safety valve”
relief under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f); and (3) his mother had recently suffered a stroke
and required his care. The Court disagreed, explaining (1) the revised guideline
sentence range would not have produced any change in Martinez’s sentence; (2)
the safety valve provision does not apply to defendants—such as Martinez—who
pleaded guilty to using firearms in connection with offenses that “result[ed] in
death . . . to any person”; and (3) Martinez made no showing that he would be his
mother’s sole caretaker.
Martinez, again proceeding pro se, now adduces additional reasons why he
should be granted such relief: (1) that sentencing disparities between citizens and
non-citizens like himself justify a sentence reduction; (2) that he would have
Case 1:08-cr-00242-AMD Document 1510 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
received a lower sentence under current guidelines; and (3) he has substantially
rehabilitated himself. For the following reasons, they do not suffice.
First, Martinez contends that citizens and non-citizens are subject to
disparities in sentencing and eligibility for sentence reductions. For example,
Martinez highlights that only citizens are eligible for a sentence reduction based on
participation in the Federal Residential Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention.
Martinez also notes that non-citizens are ineligible for placement in a minimum-
security facility. However, such disparities do not present any extraordinary and
compelling reasons in this instance. For one, Martinez would not be eligible for a
sentence reduction for participating in the drug and alcohol program even if he
were a citizen because of the nature of his conviction. See 28 C.F.R. §
550.55(b)(5)(ii) (inmates who have current felony convictions for “[a]n offense
that involved the carrying, possession, or use of a firearm” are ineligible for early
release). Nor does Martinez explain why his ineligibility for placement in a
minimum-security facility justifies compassionate release and the Court is not
aware of any reason. Accordingly, possible disparities between citizens and non-
citizens do not present any extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence
reduction in this instance.
Second, Martinez contends that he received a higher sentence compared to
what current defendants would receive under the Sentencing Commission’s new
Case 1:08-cr-00242-AMD Document 1510 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
guidelines. Martinez contends that the new guidelines cap the offense level for
certain drug offenses to 30, instead of 32. Martinez appears to be referencing
section 2D1.1, which can provide an adjustment in drug cases “if the defendant’s
primary function in the offense was plainly among the lowest level of drug
trafficking functions, such as serving as a courier, running errands, sending or
receiving phone calls or messages, or acting as a lookout.” Such an adjustment
would not have applied to Martinez, however, as his functions included robbing
drug traffickers, not the low-level functions listed at section 2D1.1. Accordingly,
no change in law justifies a reduction in sentence.
Third, Martinez contends that his substantial rehabilitation justifies a
reduction in sentence. Martinez explains that he has completed many educational
programs, including Spanish G.E.D., drug prevention, and parenting programs. The
Court commends Martinez for his efforts, but rehabilitation alone does not
constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason, and Martinez has not produced
any other extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying relief. 28 U.S.C. §
994(t); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d).
Case 1:08-cr-00242-AMD Document 1510 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
In sum, Martinez has not established any extraordinary and compelling
reasons justifying a sentence reduction. Martinez’s motion is therefore denied.
SO ORDERED.
_/S/ Frederic Block___________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
February 11, 2026
Case 1:08-cr-00242-AMD Document 1510 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>