USA v. Navarrete

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Case No. 5:23-cr-00652-MIS
GUADALUPE ANTONIO NAVARRETE,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Guadalupe Antonio Navarrete’s letter,
docketed March 9, 2026, asking the Court to reevaluate his criminal history points and criminal
history category in light of the “Intervening Arrest” amendment to the 2025 Sentencing Guidelines.
ECF No. 82. The Court construes the letter as a Motion for Reduction of Sentence.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court may reduce the term of imprisonment for 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)’ and
made retroactive pursuant to § 994(u).” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010) (quoting
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). See also United States v. Piper, 839 F.3d 1261, 1266 (10th Cir. 2016)
(“Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes a district court to reduce an otherwise final sentence under a
Guidelines amendment if the reduction is consistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, the Sentencing
Commission’s relevant policy statement, and after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a).”). Only the amendments listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) have been made retroactive. See
United States v. Ramirez, 698 F. App’x 943, 945 (10th Cir. 2017) (“Amendment 794 is not among
the covered amendments listed in § 1B1.10(d) and thus has not been made retroactive by the
Sentencing Commission.”); see also U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual [hereafter U.S.S.G.] §
Case 5:23-cr-00652-MIS Document 83 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1B1.10(a)(2) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2025) (“A reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment
is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) if . . . [n]one of the amendments listed in subsection (d) is applicable to the
defendant[.]”). Thus, “[e]ligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered
only by an amendment listed in subsection (d) that lowers the applicable guideline range . . . .”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 Appl. Note 1 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2025).
Here, Defendant—who was sentenced March 20, 2024—requests a sentence reduction
based on Amendment 832, Part B—which became effective November 1, 2025—which clarifies
that “a traffic stop is not an intervening arrest” for purposes of computing a defendant’s criminal
history. See United States Sentencing Commission, Amendment 832, available at
https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/amendment/832 (last visited Mar. 11, 2026); see also U.S.S.G. §
4A1.2(a)(2) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2025); 90 Fed. Reg. 19798-01, 19800.
Amendment 832 is not among the covered amendments listed in § 1B1.10(d) and thus has
not been made retroactive by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Thompson, Criminal
No. 3:23-CR-30009-002, 2026 WL 408649, at *2 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 23, 2026) (recommending that
the defendant’s motion for sentence modification should be denied because Amendment 832 is not
listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) and “the Court cannot locate any authority supporting that
[Amendment 832 is] retroactive”), report and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 404411 (W.D.
Ark. Feb. 12, 2026); see also United States v. Kuot, 4:20-CR-3130, 2025 WL 3079996, at *1 (D.
Neb. Nov. 3, 2025) (observing that the new Guidelines amendments have not yet been applied
retroactively). Consequently, Defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). See Thompson, 2026 WL 408649, at *2; see also United States v. Nunez, Case No.
2:25-cr-00394-MIS, 2026 WL 36101, at *1 (D.N.M. Jan. 6, 2026) (concluding that the defendant
Case 5:23-cr-00652-MIS Document 83 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
was not entitled to a sentence reduction under Section 3582(c)(2) because Amendment 833 has not
been made retroactive by the Sentencing Commission); United States v. Leones, CASE NO: 8:20-
cr-138-CEH-AAS, 2025 WL 3537608, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2025) (same); United States v.
Ramirez-Roman, No. CR-21-01384-001-TUC-JCH (EJM), 2025 WL 3718464, at *1 (D. Ariz.
Dec. 23, 2025) (same).
Even if Amendment 832 had been made retroactive by the Sentencing Commission the
Court would still deny relief because Defendant’s criminal history was not computed using an
“intervening arrest.” See Presentence Investigation Report ¶¶ 44-51, ECF No. 54.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s construed Motion for Reduction
of Sentence, ECF No. 82, is DENIED.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:23-cr-00652-MIS Document 83 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 3