USA v. Galvan-Trujillo et al

ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RUBEN GALVAN-TRUJILLO (1),

Defendant.

No. 4:22-CR-06041-MKD-1
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
REDUCE SENTENCE

ECF No. 220
Before the Court is Defendant Ruben Galvan-Trujillo’s (1) Motion to
Reduce Sentence Pursuant [to] Safety Valve/5K1.1 Motion for Mandatory
Minimum of 120 Months, ECF No. 220. This is Defendant’s second motion for a
sentence reduction since he was sentenced on February 7, 2024. See ECF Nos.
187, 199, 213. At the time of sentencing, Defendant’s guidelines range was 135 to
168 months’ incarceration; he received a low-end guidelines sentence of 135
months’ incarceration. ECF Nos. 187, 199, 200.
Defendant appears to be seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) or (2) on the ground that he should have qualified for the safety
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
May 21, 2025
Case 4:22-cr-06041-MKD ECF No. 221 filed 05/21/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

ORDER - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

valve, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); relief from the statutory minimum sentence
based on substantial assistance, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); or a downward
departure based on substantial assistance, under USSG § 5K1.1. See ECF No. 220
at 1 (paraphrasing language from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), (f)(1)(A) and (f)(2)).
Defendant’s safety-valve eligibility was a contested issue at sentencing; after
hearing argument from counsel for Defendant and the United States, the Court
found Defendant was ineligible based on his failure to meet the requirements of
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). There is no indication in the Plea Agreement, the
arguments at sentencing, or elsewhere in the record that Defendant provided (or
attempted to provide) substantial assistance to qualify for relief from the statutory
minimum or a downward departure.
Moreover, Defendant provides no authority indicating that a defendant may
relitigate his ineligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), (f), or USSG § 5K1.1 by
moving for a sentence reduction under Section 3582(c). Several district courts
have rejected similar arguments. See, e.g., United States v. Picazo-Torres, No. 17-
537-2, 2024 WL 4008191, at *4 (S.D. Texas Aug. 28, 2024) (rejecting safety-valve
argument raised in a Section 3582(c) motion); United States v. Trujillo-Linares,
No. 19-CR-3097, 2024 WL 5170286, at *1-2 (D. Neb. Dec. 19, 2024) (same);
United States v. Hernandez, No. 14-CR-160, 2022 WL 608001, at *2 (N.D. Texas
Jan. 3, 2022) (dismissing motion for “post-judgment sentence reduction under
Case 4:22-cr-06041-MKD ECF No. 221 filed 05/21/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

ORDER - 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

§ 5K1.1” for lack of jurisdiction under Section 3582(c)); Barcliff v. United States,
No. 14-CR-3, 2022 WL 2032297, at *2-3 (S.D. W. Va. May 2, 2022) (denying
Section 3852(c) motion that included challenges to the denial of 5K1.1 and 18
U.S.C. § 3553(e) relief at sentencing).
Defendant otherwise raises arguments that concern his rehabilitation in
custody, remorse, lack of other criminal history, and family ties. The Court took
these factors into account at the time of Defendant’s sentencing. Moreover, these
factors do not constitute sufficient grounds for a sentence reduction under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendant Ruben Galvan-Trujillo’s (1) Motion to Reduce Sentence
Pursuant [to] Safety Valve/5K1.1 Motion for Mandatory Minimum of 120 Months,
ECF No. 220, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order
and provide copies to the United States, Defendant Ruben Galvan-Trujillo (1), and
the U.S. Probation Office.
DATED May 21, 2025.

s/Mary K. Dimke
MARY K. DIMKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:22-cr-06041-MKD ECF No. 221 filed 05/21/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3