USA v. Nunez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Case No. 2:25-cr-00394-MIS
SERGIO NUNEZ,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) AND AMENDMENT 821 TO THE FEDERAL SENTENCING
GUIDELINES AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Sergio Nunez’s pro se Motion for
Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines (“Motion”), ECF No. 35, filed December 18, 2025. Defendant also filed a
Motion Requesting a Court-Appointed Lawyer and/or Public Defender to Assist [Him] in
Presenting the Motion for the 2-Point Sentence Reduction Pursuant to Amendment 821 (“Motion
to Appoint Counsel”). ECF No. 36. The Government did not respond to either Motion.
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 August 14, 2025, see Sentencing
Case 2:25-cr-00394-MIS Document 40 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Minute Sheet, ECF No. 33; Judgment at 3, ECF No. 34. Thus, his sentencing range was not
“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 Amendment 821 to the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines, ECF No. 35, is DENIED. Defendant’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 36, is
DENIED AS MOOT.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cr-00394-MIS Document 40 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 2