USA v. Farias, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	§
§
§
VS.
JOSE MANUEL SALDIVAR-FARIAS
§ 	CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4: 15-CR-203-1
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion of the Defendant Jose Manuel Saldivar-Farias ("Defendant"
or "Saldivar") for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(l)(A). (Doc. No. 789). In
addition to making a request for Compassionate Release, he is also seeking a sentence reduction
pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guideline Amendment 821, which is commonly referred
to as the Zero Point Offender Adjustment. The United States ("Government") has filed a response
in opposition. (Doc. No. 802).
I. 	Procedural Background
Before proceeding to analyze the merits of the motion, the Court needs to recount the facts
underlying Saldivar's conviction and the procedural history and circumstances surrounding his
guilty plea and sentencing, as they have a bearing upon this Court's ruling. Saldivar pleaded guilty
to Count Two of the Third Superseding Indictment which charged him with conspiracy to import
from Mexico into the United States 1,000 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing
a detectable amount of marijuana in violation of21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a), 960(a)(l) and (b)(l).
Due to the circumstances involved, he was facing the possibility of a life sentence based upon this
charge. No doubt with this possibility in mind, the parties entered into plea negotiations.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 10, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:15-cr-00203 Document 826 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 10

He and the Government finally agreed on a 30-year sentence and therefore presented the
Court with a Joint Motion to Waive the Presentence Investigation Report. (Doc. No. 538). The
Court granted that motion. (Doc. No. 552). The Defendant then pleaded guilty to Count Two of
the Third Superseding Indictment pursuant to Rule 11 (a)(l )(C), and the Court, in accordance with
the Plea Agreement and the Joint Motion, sentenced Saldivar to the agreed upon 360 months.
Importantly, for purposes of this motion, the Join Motion and the Plea Agreement contained
various agreed-upon facts and conclusions that would aid the Court in determining whether to
follow and adopt the agreed upon sentence. While the Court will try not to belabor the agreed-
upon facts and guideline calculations, it quotes certain portions at some length as they are
somewhat relevant here.
On the night of March 12, 2015, Perez-Ocampo and Hernandez-Martinez
were in the process of importing approximately one ton of marijuana from Nueva
Ciudad Guerrero, Tamaulipas, Mexico into the United States across the Falcon
Lake by 	boat. 	Perez-Ocampo 	had 	previously 	obtained permission from 	the
defendant to do so and had paid him the "piso" or "tax" to transport the marijuana
through the area across Falcon Lake. Perez-Ocampo and Hernandez-Martinez were
at the Lake's shore preparing to 	load the marijuana onto 	boats when they
encountered the defendant and Ramirez-Ramirez who were fleeing from the
Mexican military who were attempting to capture the defendant. The defendant and
Ramirez-Ramirez jumped into Hernandez-Martinez boat and ordered Hernandez-
Martinez to take him across to the United States.
While crossing Falcon Lake, the defendant instructed everyone in the boat
to lie about his identity in the event they were apprehended, to deny association
with the Zetas, and to tell U.S. authorities that he was "Carlos Cruz-Jimenez."
Shortly after crossing Falcon Lake and landing in the United States, Department of
Public 	Safety officers and 	border patrol 	agents 	apprehended the 	defendant,
Ramirez-Ramirez, 	Hernandez-Martinez 	and 	Perez-Ocampo. 	The 	defendant
identified himself as "Carlos Cruz-Jimenez" and claimed he traveled to the United
States to find employment.
The investigation further revealed that the defendant and his co-conspirators
coordinated the importation multi-kilogram loads of marijuana on a monthly basis
throughout the period of the charged conspiracy, the total of which exceeded 1,000
kilograms of marijuana. Based on federal law enforcement's seizures of marijuana
2
Case 4:15-cr-00203 Document 826 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 10

in the United States that was imported across Falcon Lake, the total amount of
marijuana attributable to the defendant is 42 ,940 kilograms.
Victim Impact
1. 	There is no victim of the offense.
Adjustment for Obstruction of Justice
2. 	The defendant told multiple co-defendants to lie about his identity, his
association with the Zetas and to not cooperate with the Government at
various times since his arrest. Adjustment for
Acceptance of Responsibility
3. 	There is no provision for Acceptance of Responsibility in the Plea
Agreement. 	Further, 	since 	the 	defendant 	is 	considered 	to 	have
obstructed justice as envisioned under USSG § 3C 1.1 , the defendant has
not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.
Offense Level Calculation
4. 	Base 	Offense 	Level: 	The 	United 	States 	Sentencing 	Commission
Guideline for a violation of 21 	U.S .C. 963 , 952(a), 960(a)(l) and
(b)(l)(G) is found in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl. l(a)(5). This guideline instructs
that the base offense level is determined by the type and quantity of
illicit controlled substance attributable to the relevant conduct findings
for this defendant. As identified in The Offense Conduct section above,
the defendant is held accountable for 42,940 kilograms of marijuana.
Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D 1.1 (c) (2) the base offense level is established
at 36.
36
5. 	Specific Offense Characteristic: The defendant possessed a dangerous
weapon, a firearm. Pursuant to USSG § 2D 1.1 (b )( 1) the offense level is
increased by 2.
+2
6. 	The defendant used violence, made a credible threat to use violence, or
directed the use of violence. Pursuant to USSG § 2D1.l(b)(2), the
offense level is increased by 2.
+2
7. 	The defendant engaged in witness intimidation or otherwise obstructed
justice in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the
3
Case 4:15-cr-00203 Document 826 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 10

offense. Pursuant to USSG § 2D 1.1 (b )(l 5)(D), the offense level is
increased by 2.
+2
8. 	Adjustments for Role in the Offense: Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B 1. l(a),
the offense level is increased by four, as the defendant is deemed an
organizer/leader 	or 	criminal 	activity 	that 	involved 	five 	or 	more
participants or was otherwise extensive.
+4
9. 	Adjustments for use of minor to commit a crime: 	Pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.4, the offense le vel is increased by two as the defendant
used or attempted to use a person less than eighteen years of age to
commit 	the 	offense 	or 	a ss ist 	in 	the 	avoiding 	detection 	of, 	or
apprehension for, the offense.
+2
10. Adjustments for use of body armor during commission of drug
trafficking crime: Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.5, the offense level is
increased by four, as the defendant was convicted of a drug trafficking
crime and the defendant used body armor during the commission of the
offense, in preparation for the offense, or in an attempt to avoid
apprehension for the offense.
+4
11. Chapter Four Enhancements: None
12. Total Offense Level: 	52
PART B: DEFENDANT'S CRIMINAL HISTORY
The defendant does not have any prior convictions.
(Doc. No. 538 at 6-7).
The Court granted the parties' motion to waive the Presentence Investigation Report and
in doing so , made the following finding :
That the information contained in the parties' Joint Motion to Waive Presentence
Investigation [which includes the information quoted above] is undisputed; that
said information contained therein satisfies the requirements of Rule 32(b)(1) and
that said information and information otherwise in the record enables this Court to
exercise its sentencing authority meaningfully under 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
(Doc. No. 552).
4
Case 4:15-cr-00203 Document 826 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 10

The 	Court 	sentenced 	Saldivar 	to 	30 	years 	in 	custody 	in 	accordance 	with 	his
Rule ll (a)(l)(C) plea agreement. Had the Court sentenced Saldivar following the agreed upon
Guideline calculation provided by the parties, he would have had an offense level of 52 with a
criminal history category of 1, which under the guidelines would have meant life in prison.
II. 	Analysis
A. Compassionate Release
The compassionate release statute, 18 U.S .C. § 3582(c)(l)(A), as amended by the First
Step Act on December 21 , 2018, provides in pertinent part:
(c) Modification of an Imposed Term of Imprisonment. - 	The court may not
modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that-
( 1) in any case-
(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all
administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a
motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of
such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier,
may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation
or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the
unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering
the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable,
if it finds that-
(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
reduction . . . and that such a reduction is consistent with
applicable 	policy 	statements 	issued 	by 	the 	Sentencing
Commission ....
Title 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) provides:
The 	Commission, 	in 	promulgating 	general 	policy 	statements 	regarding 	the
sentencing modification provisions in section 3582(c)(l)(A) of title 	18 , shall
describe what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for
sentence reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of specific
examples. Rehabilitation of the defendant alone 	shall not be considered an
extraordinary and compelling reason.
5
Case 4:15-cr-00203 Document 826 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 10

The Sentencing Guidelines policy statement appears at§ lBl.13 , and provides that the
Court may grant release if "extraordinary and compelling circumstances" exist, "after considering
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable," and the Court
determines 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)." The Fifth Circuit has held that the commentary to
U.S .S.G. § lB 1.13 "informs our analysis as to what reasons may be sufficiently 'extraordinary and
compelling' to merit compassionate release," although that commentary is "not dispositive" and
§ 1B 1.13 does not bind a court considering a compassionate-release motion. United States v.
Thompson , 984 F.3d 431 , 433 (5th Cir. 2021).
In application note 1 to the policy statement, the Commission identifies the "extraordinary
and compelling reasons" that may justify compassionate release. The note provides as follows:
1. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.-Provided the defendant meets the
requirements of subdivision (2) [regarding absence of danger to the community],
extraordinary and compelling reasons exist under any of the circumstances set forth
below:
(A) Medical Condition of the Defendant.-
Ci) The defendant is suffering from a terminal illness (i .e., a serious and
advanced illness with an end of life trajectory). A specific prognosis of life
expectancy (i .e ., a probability of death within a specific time period) is not
required. Examples include metastatic solid-tumor cancer, amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS), end-stage organ disease, and advanced dementia.
(ii) The defendant is-
(1) 	suffering 	from 	a 	senous 	physical 	or 	medical
condition,
(II) 	suffering from 	a serious 	functional 	or cognitive
impairment, or
(III) 	experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health
because of the aging process, that substantially diminishes
the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the
environment of a correctional facility and from which he or
she is not expected to recover.
(B) Age of the Defendant-The defendant (i) is at least 65 years old; (ii) is
experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the
6
Case 4:15-cr-00203 Document 826 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 10

aging process; and (iii) has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or her term
of imprisonment, whichever is less.
(C) Family Circumstances.-
(i) The death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant's
minor child or minor children.
(ii) The incapacitation of the defendant's spouse or registered
partner when the defendant would be the only available caregiver
for the spouse or registered partner.
(D) Other Reasons.-As determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, there
exists in the defendant's case an extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or
in combination with, the reasons described in subdivisions (A) through (C).
The Defendant does not have a terminal illness. While he complains of certain health
problems, this Court has reviewed his recent medical records and finds no evidence of any disease
or condition that would qualify. He has no major diseases or medical conditions, and he was treated
for minor everyday conditions. There are some indications that the doctors ordered him to be tested
for Hepatitis B, but there is no indication he actually has it. The Defendant is not 65. He was born
in 1987 and is only 38 years old. While he argues his family needs him, he does not claim that his
family circumstances qualify under the rule. Overall, he presents no compelling reason to have
anyone consider him eligible for Compassionate Release.
B. 	Zero Point Offender Adjustment
Saldivar also requests this Court to retroactively apply the Zero Point Offender Adjustment
due to the fact that when he pleaded guilty, he had no criminal history points----or at least would
have had none had a Presentence Investigation Report been completed. The Government concedes
that before his conviction in this case, he had not been convicted of a crime (or at least one that
would assess criminal history points), but vehemently contests his right to this reduction.
The trial court's authority to reduce a sentence is derived from Title 18, United States Code,
§ 3582(c)(2), which provides:
7
Case 4:15-cr-00203 Document 826 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 10

[I]n 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 pursuant to Title 28, United States Code,§ 994(0), upon motion of the
defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court
may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in
section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
In U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, the Sentencing Commission has identified the amendments which
may be applied retroactively pursuant to this authority and articulated the proper procedure for
implementing those amendments. The version of§ 1B1.10 applicable to sentence reductions under
Amendment 821 was effective on November 1, 2014. Application note 8 (2014) provides: "the
court shall use the version of this policy statement that is in effect on the date on which the court
reduces the defendant's term of imprisonment as provided by Title 18, United States Code,
§ 3582(c)(2). Under§ lBl.10:
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
amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (d) below, the court may
reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment as provided by Title 18 , United States
Code, § 3583(c)(2), any such reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment
shall be consistent with this policy statement.
Since Saldivar's claim that he has no relevant criminal convictions is conceded, the first
step in the analysis would normally be to determine what the relevant guideline range would have
been for the Defendant had the relevant amendment been in place at the time a defendant was
actually sentenced. See § l B 1. lO(b )(1 ). The Government concedes the range and the lack of
criminal history, so this Court need not do that. If that calculation makes a defendant eligible for a
reduction, the Court may implement that reduction, but it cannot reduce the sentence below the
minimum of the amended guideline. § 1B 1.1 0(b)(2). After that determination is made, the Court
can then apply the relevant § 3553(a) factors. The 2023 Amendment to the Guidelines allowed a
court to reduce the offense level of a defendant two levels if the defendant scored no criminal
8
Case 4:15-cr-00203 Document 826 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 10

history points (and otherwise meets the eligibility requirements). The Government contends that
Saldivar does not meet these requirements.
To qualify for the Zero Point Offender Reduction, one must meet all of the following
criteria:
§ 4C 1.1. Adjustment for Certain Zero-Point Offenders
(a) ADJUSTMENT.-Ifthe defendant meets all of the following criteria:
(1) the defendant did not receive any criminal history points from Chapter Four,
Part A;
(2) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3Al .4 (Terrorism);
(3) th e defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence in connection
with the offense;
( 4) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury;
(5) the instant offense of conviction is not a sex offense;
(6) the defendant did not personally cause substantial financial hardship;
(7) th e defendant did not possess, receive, purchase, transport, transfer, sell, or
otherwise dispose of a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another
participant to do so) in connection with the offense;
(8) the instant offense of conviction is not covered by §2Hl .1 (Offenses Involving
Individual Rights);
(9) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3Al.1 	(Hate Crime
Motivation or Vulnerable Victim) or §3Al .5 (Serious Human Rights Offense); and
( 10) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3B 1.1 (Aggravating Role)
and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in 21 U.S.C. §
848 ; decrease the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three by 2
levels.
U.S .S.G. § 4Cl.1 (emphasis added).
While he has no criminal history points, in the joint factual statement filed with this Court
and quoted above, Saldivar agreed that firearms were used in connection with the offense and that
violence or credible threats of violence were also used in connection with the offense. Therefore,
Saldivar does not meet all of the criteria and consequently does not qualify for the Zero Point
Offender Adjustment.
9
Case 4:15-cr-00203 Document 826 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 10

III. 	Conclusion
The Court DENIES Saldivar's request for Compassionate Release, and it also DENIES
any reduction in sentence based upon the fact that he would have had no criminal history points
attributable to him had a formal presentence investigation report been performed.
~Signed on this the _S_ day of March, 2026.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
10
Case 4:15-cr-00203 Document 826 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 10