USA v. Valle-Lassalle et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff
v.
CRIMINAL NO. 97-284-11(RAM)
[11] LUIS ROLDÁN-CORTÉS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH, United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Defendant Luis Roldán-Cortés’
(“Defendant” or “Roldán-Cortés”) Motion for Reduction of Sentence
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(a) and Amendments 821
§1B1.13(b)(6) (“Motion”). (Docket No. 1904). Having considered the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation Re: Amendment 821
(“R&R”), (Docket No. 1904), the Presentence Report (“PSR”),
(Docket No. 1260), the sentencing transcript, (Docket No. 1493),
the Judgment, (Docket No. 1480), and the Statement of Reasons,
(Docket No. 1873), Defendant’s Motion is hereby DENIED.
On July 6, 2000, a Grand Jury returned a 12-count second
superseding indictment charging Mr. Roldán-Cortés and his co-
defendants with drug trafficking conspiracy and several murders in
furtherance of the conspiracy. Defendant was charged with 4 of the
Case 3:97-cr-00284-SCC-HRV Document 1916 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 9

Criminal No. 97-284-11(RAM) 2
12 counts, namely: conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and multi-hundred
pound quantities of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(Count 1); aiding and abetting firearms murder in relation to a
drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)
(Count 7); aiding and abetting the murder of a witness or
informant, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a) (Count 8); and
aiding and abetting murder while engaging in a drug trafficking
offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1) (Count 9). Id. at
2-19.
Mr. Roldán-Cortés and two co-defendants pleaded not guilty
and proceeded to trial, which began on September 7, 2000. United
States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004). The jury
found Mr. Roldán-Cortés guilty on all counts. (Docket No. 1100).
Judge José A. Fusté sentenced Defendant to life in prison for each
count, to be served concurrently. (Docket No. 1480).1 If ever
released, he is subject to concurrent supervised release terms of
five (5) years as to all counts. Id.
Defendant timely appealed, asserting that (1) the district
court’s denial of his continuance motion denied him the opportunity
for a fair trial; (2) the evidence upon which he was convicted was
insufficient and submitted to the jury upon an incorrect mens rea
1 The case was transferred to the undersigned on March 22, 2022. (Docket No.
1849).
Case 3:97-cr-00284-SCC-HRV Document 1916 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 9

Criminal No. 97-284-11(RAM) 3
instruction; (3) the court should have severed his trial from his
co-defendants’; (4) he deserves a new trial because of newly-
discovered evidence and the government’s Brady violation; (5) the
court violated Apprendi and Blakely; and (6) the sentencing court
failed to understand its authority to grant a downward departure.
See United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004).
The First Circuit rejected Mr. Roldán-Cortés’ arguments and
affirmed Judge Fusté’s sentence. Id.
After his failed direct appeal from Judge Fusté’s sentence,
Mr. Roldán-Cortés has filed a series of unsuccessful Section 2255
petitions, motions to reduce sentence and motions for
compassionate release. See (Docket Nos. 1662, 1833, 1840, 1904).
On November 22, 2024, Mr. Roldán-Cortés filed his Motion.
(Docket No. 1904). The motion was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin pursuant to the provisions of
the Administrative Directive Regarding Amendment 821. (Docket No.
1905); see also 23-mc-565 (Docket No. 1). On December 6, 2024,
Magistrate Judge McGiverin issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) concluding that Mr. Roldán-Cortés is not eligible for a
sentence reduction under Amendment 821, but did not address
Defendant’s arguments for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C
§ 3582(c)(1)(a) and the §1B1.13 Reduction in Term of Imprisonment
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(1)(A) policy statement. (Docket No.
Case 3:97-cr-00284-SCC-HRV Document 1916 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 9

Criminal No. 97-284-11(RAM) 4
1906). Defendant objected to the R&R. (Docket No. 1907). The
Government opposed Defendant’s objections. (Docket No. 1911).
“[W]hen a lower court produces a comprehensive, well-reasoned
decision,” the reviewing court “should refrain from writing at
length to no other end than to hear its own words resonate.” Vega-
Morales v. Comm’n of Soc. Sec., 380 F. Supp. 2d 54, 56 (D.P.R.
2005)(quoting Lawton v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co. of Am., 101
F.3d 218, 220 (1st Cir. 1996)). Here, the Court ADOPTS the R&R,
which correctly determined that the defendant is not eligible for
a sentence reduction because he does not meet all the conditions
specified by § 4C1.1. (Docket 1906 at 1). Specifically, the
defendant is barred because the offense at issue “resulted in death
or serious bodily injury”. Id. at 2.
As to compassionate release under 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(1)(a),
a court may not modify a final sentence unless a defendant has
“fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of”
the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion for reduction of sentence
on his behalf or if thirty days have elapsed “from the receipt of
such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever
is earlier.” Id. Even if these conditions are met, district courts
also consider “the factors set forth in § 3553(a) to the extent
that they are applicable,” and there must be “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” warranting the proposed reduction. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); see also United States v. Saccoccia, 10 F.4th
Case 3:97-cr-00284-SCC-HRV Document 1916 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 9

Criminal No. 97-284-11(RAM) 5
1, 4 (1st Cir. 2021) (providing general principles for evaluating
compassionate release motions).
The defendant bears the burden of establishing that
extraordinary and compelling reasons exist, that he is no longer
a danger to the community, and that the § 3553(a) factors favor
release. United States v. Galiany-Cruz, 2023 WL 6458535, at 1 (1st
Cir. 2023); United States v. Miranda-Rojas, 2023 WL 7181650, at 1
(1st Cir. 2023). The United States Sentencing Commission's
(“USSC”) policy statement on prisoner-initiated motions for
compassionate release provides further guidance. See U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13. Pursuant to First Circuit precedent, “district courts
addressing such motions not only will be bound by the statutory
criteria but also will be required to ensure that their
determinations of extraordinary and compelling reasons are
consistent with that [Policy Statement’s] guidance.” United States
v. Ruvulcaba, 26 F.4th 14, 23-24 (1st Cir. 2022). In other words,
the First Circuit expects district courts to consider this policy
statement when deciding motions for compassionate release. See
United States v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 75 F.4th 1, 18 n.22 (1st Cir.
2023).
The policy statement outlines six circumstances that
individually or in combination may constitute extraordinary and
compelling reasons warranting relief: (1) the defendant's medical
circumstances; (2) the defendant's age; (3) the defendant's family
Case 3:97-cr-00284-SCC-HRV Document 1916 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 9

Criminal No. 97-284-11(RAM) 6
circumstances; (4) whether defendant was a victim of abuse while
incarcerated; (5) “other reasons” similar in gravity to the
preceding four reasons; and (6) whether the defendant received an
unusually long sentence. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b).
With regards to the last identified circumstance—an unusually
long sentence—the sentencing guidelines specifically provide:
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). But changes in the law, including
amendments to the guidelines that have not been made retroactive,
“shall not be considered for purposes of determining whether an
extraordinary and compelling reason exists under this policy
statement.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(c). On the other hand, if the
defendant establishes extraordinary and compelling reasons
warranting a reduction, “a change in the law (including an
amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not been made
retroactive) may be considered for purposes of determining the
extent of any such reduction.” Id.
Lastly, the policy statement requires a finding that “the
defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to
Case 3:97-cr-00284-SCC-HRV Document 1916 Filed 02/02/26 Page 6 of 9

Criminal No. 97-284-11(RAM) 7
the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).” U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13(a)(2). The factors to consider include the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the weight of the evidence, the
history and characteristics of the person, and the nature and
seriousness that the release of the person would pose to any person
or the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
In the case at bar, Mr. Roldán-Cortés avers that he was
sentenced before United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
that a life sentence is no longer mandatory in his case, and that
there is a gross disparity between his sentence and what he would
be sentenced to today. However, Petitioner would still have a base
offense level of 43 even under the 2025 edition of the United
States Sentencing Guidelines. Consequently, assuming arguendo that
Booker constitutes a significant nonretroactive change in the law,
his guideline sentencing “range” continues to be life
imprisonment.
Even if the Court was inclined to find that his sentence was
unusually long due to mitigating factors such as youth at the time
of the offense, Defendant has failed to put the Court in a position
to conduct a proper balancing of the section 3553(a) factors, and
to determine that he is no longer a danger to the community. See
United States v. Ebbers, 432 F. Supp. 3d 421, 430-31 (S.D.N.Y.
2020) (the court “should assess whether [the section 3553(a)
factors] outweigh the ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’
Case 3:97-cr-00284-SCC-HRV Document 1916 Filed 02/02/26 Page 7 of 9

Criminal No. 97-284-11(RAM) 8
warranting compassionate release, particularly whether
compassionate release would undermine the goals of the original
sentence.”).
Defendant makes weak, conclusory statements about his youth
at the time of the offense, his post-sentence rehabilitation, and
his devotion to his family. However, these alone cannot overcome
that Mr. Roldán-Cortés was convicted of aiding and abetting the
murder of an informant in the context of a large-scale drug
conspiracy—a violent and serious offense.
Thus, the Court finds that Defendant’s youth at the time of
the offense is insufficient to conclude that a gross disparity
exists between his sentence and what he would have been sentenced
to today. Moreover, the record is missing important information
that, in the event it found an unusually long sentence, would have
allowed the Court to conduct a proper balancing of the section
3553(a) factors and to determine whether releasing the defendant
would pose a danger to the community.
The Court will not disturb Judge Fusté’s original sentencing
calculus, which was upheld on appeal. As the First Circuit has
stated:
[S]entencing under an advisory guidelines regime
is more art than science. A sentencing judge must
weigh a variety of considerations . . . and
formulate a sentence that is responsive to the
facts. There is normally no single appropriate
sentence but, rather, a range of reasonable
sentencing options.
Case 3:97-cr-00284-SCC-HRV Document 1916 Filed 02/02/26 Page 8 of 9

Criminal No. 97-284-11(RAM) 9
United States v. Anonymous Defendant, 629 F.3d 68, 78 (1st Cir.
2010).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Luis Roldán-Cortés’s
Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(a) and Amendments 821 §1B1.13(b)(6) at Docket No. 1904
is DENIED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 2nd day of February 2026
S/ RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH
United States District Judge
Case 3:97-cr-00284-SCC-HRV Document 1916 Filed 02/02/26 Page 9 of 9