USA v. Preciado Gudino

1
24cr2639-CAB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Antonio Preciado Gudino,
Defendant.
Case No.: 24cr2639-CAB
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
REDUCTION OF SENTENCE
[DOC. NO. 42]
Before the Court is the motion of defendant Antonio Preciado Gudino, pro se, for
reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), asserting that he was
sentenced to a term of imprisonment that has subsequently been lowered by an amendment
to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”). [Doc. No. 42.] He does not
identify a specific provision he contends authorizes recalculation of his guideline
calculation and a reduction of his sentence.
The defendant was sentenced on July 25, 2025, for Importation of Cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. [Doc. No. 41.]
Defendant admitted in his plea agreement to importing 73.24 kilograms of cocaine.
[Doc. No. 27.] In calculating the defendant’s guidelines at sentencing, the defendant’s base
offense level was determined to be 34 in accordance with USSG § 2D1.1 (c)(3) [at least 50
Case 3:24-cr-02639-CAB Document 43 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 2

2
24cr2639-CAB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
kilograms but less than 150 kilograms of cocaine]. [Doc. No. 34.] No amendment has
lowered this base offense level after the defendant’s sentencing.
At sentencing, the defendant was given a minor role adjustment reducing his base
offense level to 31 and the corresponding 2-point reduction for his role in the offense. He
also qualified for statutory safety valve and received the corresponding 2-point downward
adjustment, the 2-point downward adjustment as a zero-point offender and a 3-point
downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. His resulting total offense level
was calculated to be 22. His criminal history score was 0, placing him in Category I. [Doc.
No. 34.] His guideline range was 41 to 51 months, prior to any further departures or
variances.
The defendant was given a 4-point downward departure under § 5K3.1,
recommended by the government, for early disposition, resulting in an adjusted offense
level of 18 and a guideline range of 27 to 33months. [Id.]
After considering the 3553(a) factors, the Court imposed a custodial sentence of 24
months, a custodial term below his sentencing guideline. [Doc. No. 42.]
The defendant’s motion represents that there has been an amendment to the
guidelines lowering his sentencing range. No retroactive amendment, however, has
changed his guideline calculations. Post-sentencing rehabilitative conduct alone does
present grounds for resentencing. § 1B1.10 (b). The defendant has not present justification
for the Court to recalculate his guidelines or reduce his sentence.
The defendant’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED and his motion to
reduce his sentence is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2026
Case 3:24-cr-02639-CAB Document 43 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 2