USA v. Mata-Soto

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE MATA-SOTO,

Defendant.

8:12CR355

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant Jose Mata-Soto’s (“Mata-Soto”) pro
se Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 107). He seeks counsel to assist him in
a motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Mata-Soto plead guilty to possession of intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
actual methamphetamine and use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime in
March of 2013. On May 30, 2013, he was sentenced to 180 months on the drug count and
60 months consecutive on the firearms count to be followed by 5 years of supervised
release. There was no appeal.
On October 29, 2015, his sentence was reduced to 168 months due to a retroactive
reduction in the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Sentencing Guidelines”) (Filing
No. 59). While he did not appeal from that Amended Judgment, he did file several motions
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, all of which have been denied. Mata-Soto also filed a Motion to
Reduce Sentence on November 13, 2023 (Filing No. 102) seeking relief based on a
guideline range he believed was lowered. That motion was denied (Filing No. 106).
In the present motion, Mata-Soto seeks appointment of counsel “Due to the several
proposed Amendments and changes pursuant to Schedule II controlled substances,
“methamphetamine”, 21 USC § 841(a)(1).” As noted above, Mata-Soto did have his
sentence reduced in October of 2015 due to a retroactive reduction in the Sentencing
8:12-cr-00355-RFR-MDN Doc # 108 Filed: 06/08/26 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>

Guidelines and a second motion seeking similar relief was denied. The Court finds that
there are no other guideline changes which would affect Mata-Soto’s sentence.
To the extent he refers to relief under the U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(c) where a change in
the law has not been made retroactive and cannot be considered for the purpose of
determining shall “not be considered for purposes of determining whether an extraordinary
and compelling reason exists under this policy statement.” That provision may only be
considered for purposes of determining the extent of any such reduction where other
extraordinary and compelling reasons exist. That is not the case here.
With respect to the request for appointment of counsel, there is no Sixth Amendment
or statutory right to “appointed counsel during sentencing modification proceedings” under
§ 3582(c). See United States v. Harris, 568 F.3d 666, 669 (8th Cir. 2009). Appointing
counsel in these types of cases is discretionary. Id. In exercise of that discretion a Court
is required to decide whether appointing an attorney will serve the interest of justice,
benefit the Court and the parties, and effectively use public resources and limited judicial
resources. Id.; United States v. Robinson, 542 F.3d 1045, 1052 (5th Cir. 2008). Here Mata-
Soto makes a generalized request for appointment of counsel to assist him in formulating
his arguments, many of which have been previously advanced and rejected . The Court will
not appoint counsel under these circumstances. Moto-Soto’s motion (Filing No. 107) is
denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 8th day of June 2026.

BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge

8:12-cr-00355-RFR-MDN Doc # 108 Filed: 06/08/26 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>