United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

United States of America, 

v.

Elizar Jauregui, Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Criminal Case No. 22-20429-CR-Scola 

Order Denying Motion for Sentence Reduction 

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant Elizar Jauregui’s motion 

for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Mot., ECF No. 

227.) The Government has responded (ECF No. 248). Jauregui has not filed a 

reply, and the time to do so has passed. After careful consideration of the 

motion, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court denies

Jauregui’s motion for reduction of sentence. (ECF No. 227.) 

1. Background

On April 6, 2023, the Defendant Elizar Jauregui was sentenced to a term

of imprisonment of 72 months after pleading guilty to possession with intent to 

distribute more than 5 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 

841(a)(1). (ECF Nos. 58, 60, 61, 142, 146.) The Sentencing Guidelines range was 

188 to 235 months of imprisonment based upon the Defendant’s adjusted 

offense level of 31 with a criminal history category of VI. 

Since Jauregui’s sentencing, the United States Sentencing Commission 

issued Amendment 821 which, among other things, affects the “status points” 

assessed to defendants who commit an offense while under another criminal 

justice sentence. Previously, offenders would receive two additional criminal 

history points if “the defendant committed the instant offense while under any 

criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, 

imprisonment, work release, or escape release.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). Now, 

however, under Part A of the amendment, offenders with six or fewer history 

points will no longer receive these additional status points and offenders with 

seven or more criminal history points will only be assessed one additional point, 

rather than two. See Retroactivity Impact Analysis of Parts A and B of the 2023 

Criminal History Amendment, United States Sentencing Commission, 

https://www.ussc.gov/ sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/ 

retroactivity-analyses/2023-criminal-history-amendment/202305-Crim-HistAmdt-Retro.pdf. Jauregui now seeks retroactive application of Amendment 821 

Case 1:22-cr-20429-RNS Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2024 Page 1 of 3
to the Court’s judgment sentencing him to 72 months in prison. 

2. Legal Standard 

“[A] motion to modify an otherwise final judgment pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) 

is a limited and narrow exception to the rule that final judgments are not to be 

modified.” United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 909 (11th Cir. 2003) 

(cleaned up). Specifically, § 3582(c)(2) provides:

[I]n 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 . . . , 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. 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (emphasis added).

Thus, under § 3582(c)(2), the Court must undertake a two-step 

process to determine whether a final sentence should be modified based 

on a sentencing range that has been lowered by the Sentencing 

Commission. 

First, the Court must determine if a retroactive amendment to the 

Sentencing Guidelines indeed lowered a defendant’s guidelines range and 

whether a reduction is consistent with the applicable policy statements. Second, 

the Court must consider the § 3553(a) factors to determine if it will exercise its 

discretion to reduce that defendant’s sentence.

Among other things, the Sentencing Commission policy statement 

applicable here provides that a court “shall not reduce the defendant’s term of 

imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . to a term that is less than the 

minimum of the amended guideline range[.]” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). 

Finally, the § 3553(a) factors are: (1) the nature and circumstances of the 

offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the 

sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for 

the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate deterrence to 

criminal conduct, protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and 

provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical 

care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds 

of sentences available; (4) the applicable sentencing guidelines range; (5) any 

pertinent policy statement; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence 

disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of 

similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the 

offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Case 1:22-cr-20429-RNS Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2024 Page 2 of 3
3. Analysis 

The retroactive amendment that Jauregui invokes here is Part A of 

Amendment 821—the “status points” adjustment. But Jauregui is not eligible for 

the adjustment because he did not receive any status points to begin with. And 

Part A affects only § 4A1.1’s assessment of status points used to calculate a 

defendant’s criminal history category, which would have been criminal history 

category VI regardless because of Jauregui’s qualification as a career offender. 

Accordingly, § 4A1.1’s new status-point-rules have no bearing on Jauregui's 

criminal history category. With his criminal history category unchanged, 

Jauregui’s guideline range remains the same. As such, Jauregui is ineligible for 

a sentence reduction, and even if he was entitled to a reduction, his sentencing 

range would still be far higher than the actual sentence that he received of 72 

months. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (district courts authorized to reduce sentence 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”); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1) (defendants eligible only where “the 

guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered”).

4. Conclusion 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered and adjudged

that Jauregui’s motion for reduction of sentence is denied. (ECF No. 227.)

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida on February 20, 2024.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cr-20429-RNS Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2024 Page 3 of 3