USA v. Pereida-Castellon et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
) 	REDUCE SENTENCE
vs. 	)
) 	Case No. 2:08-cr-89(1)
Jose Reyes Pereida-Castellon, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
Defendant Jose Reyes Pereida-Castellon moves for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Doc. 429. He also moves
to process pro se. Doc. 433. The United States opposes the motion to reduce sentence. Doc. 435. For
the reasons below, the motion is denied.
In 2009, Pereida-Castellon pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy and immigration-related charges.
Docs. 28, 29. The presentence investigation report calculated his sentencing range as 360 months to
life, based on a total offense level of 42 and a criminal history category I. Doc. 215. He received no
status points under United States Sentencing Guideline § 4A1.1(d) and had no criminal history points.
Id. Pereida-Castellon was sentenced to 264 months in prison. Doc. 222.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2):
in 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 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), 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.
This exception to the general rule that a court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed “represents a congressional act of lenity intended to give prisoners the benefit of later enacted
adjustments to the judgments reflected in the Guidelines.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 828
(2010). But the exception is limited; it “does not authorize a resentencing.” Id. at 831. “It permits a
Case 2:08-cr-00089-PDW Document 436 Filed 07/17/24 Page 1 of 2

2
sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by the Commission.” Id. In deciding whether
to reduce a sentence based on a retroactive amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court must first consider the scope of the reduction authorized by the
amendment and then consider whether such a reduction is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Dillon,
560 U.S. at 826.
Pereida-Castellon generally seeks a sentence reduction under Parts A and B of Amendment
821. But neither Part provides relief. As to Part A, this portion of Amendment 821 lowers the number
of “status points” received under United States Sentencing Guideline § 4A1.1 for individuals who
commit their offense while under a criminal justice sentence. Pereida-Castellon received no status
points, so he is not eligible for a sentencing reduction under Part A of Amendment 821.
As to Part B, this portion of Amendment 821 provides an offense level reduction for “zero-
point” offenders, who are offenders with no criminal history points. See U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a). But the
reduction only applies retroactively if the defendant “did not receive an adjustment under § 3B1.1
(Aggravating Role)[.]” U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(10). Pereida-Castellon received no scoreable criminal
history points, but he received a 3-level adjustment under United States Sentencing Guideline §
3B1.1(b). Because he received that adjustment, he is not eligible for a sentence reduction under Part B
of Amendment 821.
After extensive review the entire record and the relevant legal authority, Pereida-Castellon’s
motion to reduce sentence (Doc. 429) is DENIED, and his motion to proceed pro se (Doc. 433) is
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 17th day of July, 2024.
/s/ Peter D. Welte
Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 2:08-cr-00089-PDW Document 436 Filed 07/17/24 Page 2 of 2