United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff 

v. 

Wilfredo Robles, Defendant.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Criminal Case No. 22-20494-CR-Scola 

Order Denying Motion for Sentence Reduction and for Compassionate 

Release 

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant Wilfredo Robles’s motion 

for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and for 

compassionate release. (Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 96.) Without awaiting a response 

from the Government, the Court concludes Robles’s motion lacks merit. 

Accordingly, after reviewing the motion, the record, and the relevant legal 

authorities, the Court denies Robles’s motion for a reduction of sentence and for 

compassionate release. (ECF No. 96.) 

1. Background 

On April 21, 2023, Robles was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 60 

months and 2 years of supervised release after pleading guilty to one count of 

conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, 5 kilograms or more of cocaine 

while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in 

violation of 46 U.S.C. § 70506(b). (ECF No. 62.) The Sentencing Guidelines range 

was 108 to 135 months of imprisonment. 

Since Robles’s sentencing, the United States Sentencing Commission 

issued a sentencing adjustment for certain zero-point offenders (“Amendment 

821”), which provides, in relevant part, for “a decrease of two levels from the 

offense level . . . for offenders who did not receive any criminal history points . . . 

and whose instant offense did not involve specified aggravating factors.” Robles 

now seeks retroactive application of Amendment 821 to the Court’s judgment 

sentencing him to 60 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. Robles 

also appears to seek compassionate release but sets forth no factual or legal 

basis justifying the request. 

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 

Case 1:22-cr-20494-RNS Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2024 Page 1 of 4
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). In 

addition, although Amendment 821 went into effect on November 1, 2023, the 

policy statement “delays the effective date of orders reducing a defendant’s term 

of imprisonment to a date no earlier than February 1, 2024.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 

cmt. n. 7. In other words, if a defendant is scheduled for release before February 

1, 2024, he is not entitled to relief under Amendment 821.

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-20494-RNS Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2024 Page 2 of 4
3. Analysis 

Robles’s motion fails for two principal reasons. First, upon sentencing him, 

the Court anticipated the adoption of § 4C1.1’s adjustment for zero-point 

offenders and proactively applied the two-level reduction to Robles’s offense level

by way of a variance—hoping, to no avail, to avoid the need for further court 

intervention. Accordingly, Robles’s sentence already accounts for the reduction. 

Further, even if the Court were to apply an additional two-point reduction, 

Robles’s original sentence would still be lower than the bottom of the new 

guideline range, precluding further reduction: pursuant to the applicable policy 

statement, the Court cannot reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment below 

the minimum of the amended guideline range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A); 

see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010) (“The court is also 

constrained by the Commission’s statements dictating by what amount the 

sentence of a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment affected by the 

amendment may be reduced.”) (cleaned up).

As to this second point, the Court notes there is one narrow exception to 

this general rule, which does not apply here. Under subdivision (B), “[i]f the term 

of imprisonment imposed was less than the term of imprisonment provided by 

the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing 

pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial 

assistance to authorities, a reduction comparably less than the amended 

guideline range determined under subdivision (1) of this subsection may be 

appropriate.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). This “comparably less” carveout, 

however, applies only to defendants who cooperated with the government and 

received a sentence reduction either under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 or Rule 35(b). When 

“[t]he Commission amended § 1B1.10(b)(2),” it “prohibit[ed] § 3582(c)(2) 

reductions below a prisoner’s amended guidelines range, unless the original 

sentence had been below the applicable guidelines range because of a reduction 

based upon the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities.” United States 

v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. 

Gonzalez-Murillo, 852 F.3d 1329, 1335-36 (11th Cir. 2017) (same). 

In this case, the Defendant did not provide any substantial assistance to 

the government. And there has been no “government motion to reflect the 

defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). 

Thus, he is ineligible for a sentence reduction based on this exception.

Finally, since the application of Amendment 821 would not reduce 

Robles’s sentence, the Court declines to reach the second step of the analysis to 

Case 1:22-cr-20494-RNS Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2024 Page 3 of 4
consider the § 3553(a) factors.

4. Conclusion 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court denies Robles’s motion for a 

reduction of his sentence. Additionally, because Robles did not provide any 

factual or legal support justifying compassionate release, the Court denies that 

aspect of his motion as well. In sum, the Court denies Robles’s motion in its 

entirety (ECF No. 96).

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida on February 13, 2024.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cr-20494-RNS Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2024 Page 4 of 4