USA v. Montelongo et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:10-cr-00564 Document 108 Filed 04/14/26 in TXSD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Page 1 of 7

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
April 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §
V. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. H-10-0564
CHRIS MONTELONGO

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Chris Montelongo, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se motion for a sentence

reduction under the compassionate release provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

(Docket Entry No. 107.)

Having considered the motion, the record, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES

the motion for the reasons that follow.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant pleaded guilty in September 2010 to conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and possession of a firearm in relation to a drug
trafficking offense. The Court sentenced him in November 2011 to a 260-month term of
incarceration, which was later reduced in April 2015 to a 248-month term of incarceration
pursuant to retroactive sentencing guideline amendments.

Defendant contends in the motion that, having served seventeen years’ of an

“unconstitutionally harsh” sentence, he is entitled to a sentence reduction.

"Defendant has served fourteen years of his sentence, not seventeen.

Case 4:10-cr-00564 Document108_ Filed 04/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 7

Il. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standards

The Court has the authority under the compassionate release provisions of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) to reduce a defendant’s sentence of confinement if (i) extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant the reduction, (ii) such reduction fulfills the sentencing factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), (iii) the reduction is consistent with the United States
Sentencing Commission’s applicable policy statements, and (iv) the defendant exhausted
his claims through prison administrative remedies prior to filing his motion.

Under the amended provisions of United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”)
§ 1B1.13(b), district courts may consider the following extraordinary and compelling
circumstances in their analysis: (1) a defendant’s medical circumstances; (2) his advanced
age; (3) his family circumstances; (4) whether he was a victim of abuse while in custody;
(5) other reasons similar in gravity to those previously described; and (6) an unusually long
sentence meeting certain requirements. Jd. § 1B1.13(b)(1)-(6).

Even if a defendant shows extraordinary and compelling reasons for granting relief,
other hurdles remain. For example, the court must find that “the defendant is not a danger
to the safety of any other person or to the community,” as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(a)(2). The court must further consider the sentencing factors set forth

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to the extent applicable.

Case 4:10-cr-00564 Document108_ Filed 04/14/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 7

B. Unusually Long Sentence

Defendant claims entitlement to relief because his sentence was “unconstitutionally
harsh.” The Court liberally construes defendant’s argument as seeking relief under the
“unusually long sentence” provisions of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6).

Under § 1B1.13(b)(6),

If a defendant received an unusually long sentence and has served at least 10

years of the term of imprisonment, a change in the law (other than an

amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not been made retroactive) may

be considered in determining whether the defendant presents an extraordinary

and compelling reason, but only where such change would produce a gross

disparity between the sentence being served and the sentence likely to be

imposed at the time the motion is filed, and after full consideration of the

defendant’s individualized circumstances.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). Thus, defendant must establish that he has served at least ten
years of an unusually long sentence and that a change in law has produced a gross disparity
between the sentence being served and the sentence likely to be imposed as of the time he
filed his motion. Moreover the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held
that the change in law must carry retroactive application. See United States v. Austin, 125
F.4th 688, 692 (Sth Cir. 2025) (holding that a non-retroactive change in the law is not an
extraordinary or compelling reason to reduce a prisoner’s sentence).

The Court assumes, without finding, that defendant’s sentence is an unusually long

sentence, and finds that defendant has served at least ten years of the sentence. However,

defendant has not established that a retroactive change in law has produced a gross disparity

Case 4:10-cr-00564 Document108_ Filed 04/14/26 in TXSD Page 4of 7

between his current sentence and the sentence likely to be imposed at this time. To the
contrary, defendant argues as follows:

November 1, 2024 and November 1, 2025, Congress made a number of

amendments to the sentencing guidelines. Enabling the Court to reduce

[defendant’s] sentence. Such as amendments to 924(c), acquitted conduct and

so forth. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(5)(6) [sic].

[Defendant] was sentenced May 11, 2011? to a21 year, 9 month sentence that

today the Court would not be bound to impose. Due to the many changes to

the law. Including above stated, as well as First Step Act of 2018, and many

Supreme Court cases, such as Davis, Borden, Erlinger, & so forth. Now in

the near future Second Step Act of 2026. Which amended [defendant’s] 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) [.] (b)C1)(A) conviction.

(Docket Entry No. 107, pp. 2-3.)

Defendant’s conclusory assertions, incomplete references to statutes and case law,
and lack of factual allegations supporting application of any particular law to his sentence,
do not meet his burden of proof under § 1B1.13(b)(6). Defendant has not established that
aretroactive change in law has produced a gross disparity between his sentence being served

and the sentence likely to be imposed as of the time he filed his motion.

No extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction are shown, and

relief is not warranted.

*Defendant was sentenced on November 3, 2011.

4

Case 4:10-cr-00564 Document108_ Filed 04/14/26 in TXSD Page5of7

C. Sentencing Factors

Even assuming defendant had established extraordinary and compelling reasons for
a sentence reduction, his sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) would not support
the granting of relief.

Section 3553(a) directs courts to consider such factors as the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the defendant’s history and characteristics; the need to
reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense; the need to deter criminal conduct; and the need to protect the
public, among other considerations.

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and to possessing a firearm in relation
to the drug trafficking. The record showed that defendant had been released from prison in
2008 and had quickly returned to criminal activities as evinced by his arrest in 2010 in the
instant case. /d., p. 11. As emphasized by the Government at sentencing, “This is an
individual, who within one meeting with an undercover officer, is already talking about
shooting people during this robbery, inflicting serious injury upon them, and he’s known this
individual for no more than half an hour.” Jd., p. 9.

The Court was greatly concerned at sentencing by defendant’s lengthy criminal
history, instances of violence, and repeated failures to avoid criminal behavior, even while

incarcerated:

Case 4:10-cr-00564 Document108_ Filed 04/14/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 7

Well, what concerns me actually perhaps even more than the offense that
brings us here today, I’m very worried about the instance of violence, some
against family members, burglary in Tom Green family, and having
possession of a controlled substance in a prison facility. I mean, these things
trouble me, I think, more than the instant offense.

(Docket Entry No. 104, p. 6.) The Court continued:

You were given five years deferred adjudication, and then you had your
probation revoked because you burglarized a building. You possessed a
prohibited weapon, a switchblade. Tested positive for cocaine and marijuana.
Failed to attend several Alcoholic Anonymous meetings. Failed to complete
the New Directions counseling program. And failed to adhere to several other
conditions ordered by the Court.

That’s just not the record of somebody who understand the wrongness of his
ways and wants to rehabilitate himself.

* * *

[A]ccording to the confidential informant, [defendant] said that his job was
conducting armed robberies on a regular basis as a source of income, that he
had a crew of four individuals to commit the home invasion being talked
about.

Id., pp. 7-8, 19. At sentencing, defendant attempted to excuse his criminal actions
by blaming the people who “brought” the drug trafficking “opportunity” to him. The Court
was not persuaded:

I don’t care who brought it to you. It involved, quite ugly violence, right?

You were using guns? I mean, you wanted your cut of the cocaine. You were

going to try not to shoot the undercover agent during the robbery.

Id., p. 21, emphasis added. Ultimately, however, the Court imposed a sentence sixty-four

months below the Government’s recommendation, stating on the record that “all legitimate

Case 4:10-cr-00564 Document108_ Filed 04/14/26 in TXSD___— Page 7 of 7

interests can be served by a slightly lesser sentence” of 260 months. /d., p. 24. The
sentence was reduced to 248 months four years later pursuant to retroactive sentencing
guideline amendments. Defendant’s anticipated date of release is December 22, 2028.

Defendant presents no argument or evidence in his motion of any rehabilitative
efforts made during his fourteen years in federal prison, and proffers no plans as to how he
would support himself if released from prison. After again weighing the applicable
sentencing factors, the Court finds that defendant’s sentence remains sufficient, but not
greater than necessary, to achieve the goals of sentencing. The Court is of the opinion that
further reduction of defendant’s sentence would not reflect the seriousness of the offense,
promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, adequately deter
criminal conduct, or protect the public. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons shown above, defendant’s motion for a compassionate
release/sentence reduction (Docket Entry No. 107) is DENIED. Defendant’s request for
appointment of counsel is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Signed at Houston, Texas, on this the / 4 day of April, 2026.

KEITH P. ELLISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE