USA v. Garcia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
Criminal Case No. 4:20-CR-00533-001
EZEQUIEL ALANIS ESPITIA
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Ezequiel Alanis Espitia’s pro se Motion for
Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821, (Dkt. No.
682), and Motion for Appointment of Counsel to File a Motion for Reduction in Sentence
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), (Dkt. Nos. 716, 717).
Part A of Amendment 821 addresses “status points,” the additional criminal-
history points given to offenders who committed the offense of conviction while under a
criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment,
work release, or escape status. Under Part A, (1) offenders with six or fewer criminal-
history points will no longer receive status points, and (2) offenders with seven or more
criminal-history points will only receive one status point instead of two.
Espitia was not assessed any status points. (Dkt. No. 595 at 32–33) (SEALED). He
therefore receives no benefit from Part A of Amendment 821.
Part B of Amendment 821 creates a new guideline that provides for a decrease of
two offense levels for offenders with zero criminal-history points whose offense did not
involve specific aggravating factors. See U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 07, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:20-cr-00533 Document 720 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
Espitia’s criminal history score was zero; however, because he received a 4-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for being an organizer or leader of a criminal
activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, he fails to
meet the criteria for an adjustment and receives no benefit from Amendment 821. See
U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(10); (Dkt. No. 595 at 32) (SEALED).
There is no constitutional right to counsel in Section 3582 or other post-appellate
criminal proceedings. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 1993, 95
L.Ed.2d 539 (1987) (“[T]he right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right,
and no further.”); United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010–11 (5th Cir. 1995) (no
constitutional or statutory right to counsel in § 3582 proceedings). “Although a
defendant in a § 3582(c) motion does not have a statutory or constitutional right to
appointment of counsel, the Court may appoint counsel in the interest of justice.” United
States v. Rodriguez, No. 2:10-CR-00017, 2015 WL 13664966, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2015)
(citing United States v. Robinson, 542 F.3d 1045, 1051–52 (5th Cir. 2008)); see also 18 U.S.C.
§ 3006A(a)(2) (allowing appointment of counsel under certain circumstances when “the
court determines that the interests of justice so require”). The interests of justice do not
require that counsel be appointed where a “defendant’s motion does not involve
complicated or unresolved issues” or where a defendant proves capable of representing
himself pro se. See United States v. Joseph, No. 1:15-CR-00307, 2020 WL 3128845, at *2 (E.D.
La. June 12, 2020) (quoting United States v. Moore, 400 F.App’x 851, 852 (5th Cir. 2010) (per
curiam) (cleaned up)).
Case 4:20-cr-00533 Document 720 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
Espitia seeks counsel to determine if he qualifies for a sentence reduction under
Amendment 821. But because Espitia is not eligible for relief under Amendment 821, his
motion to appoint counsel is moot.
Accordingly, Espitia’s Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821, (Dkt. No. 682), is DENIED. Espitia’s Motion for
Appointment of Counsel to File a Motion for Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), (Dkt. Nos. 716, 717), is DENIED as moot.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on April 6, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:20-cr-00533 Document 720 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3