1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

HECTOR ARMENTA-CARDENAS,

Petitioner/Defendant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent/Plaintiff.

 NO. C05-5659FDB 

 CR01-5641JET

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendant’s Motion for

Reduction of Sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2).

Defendant seeks a reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), claiming that his

sentence was improperly enhanced “by two points for allegedly possessing a firearm in the underlying

criminal drug offense.” (Defendant’s Motion, p. 2). 

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as

Case 3:05-cv-05659-FDB Document 7 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 - 2

follows:

18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) provides in pertinent part:

The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that--

(2) in 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 pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,

or on its own motion, 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 statement issued by the Sentencing Commission.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added).

Defendant’s reliance on Amendment 599 is misplaced. Sentencing guidelines Amendment

599 clarifies under what circumstances Defendants sentenced for violations of §924(c), in

conjunction with convictions for other offenses, may receive weapons enhancements for those other

offenses. Amendment 599 expands the commentary to USSG section 2K2.4, which applies only to

certain firearms offenses, including violations of §924(c)(1).

On May 3, 2002, Defendant pleaded guilty to Count 1 of an Indictment charging him with

possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

841(b)(1)(A). Count 2 of the indictment charged possession of a firearm during and in furtherance

of a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1). However, count 2 was dismissed

at sentencing pursuant to the plea agreement. (Plea Agreement Dkt. No. 55; CR01-5641JET). 

Defendant was sentenced solely on count 1, and his sentence range calculated under USSG

§2D1.1(b)(1), not §2K2.4. The United States Sentencing Commission has not lowered the

sentencing range applicable to guideline §2D1.1(b)(1). Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to a

sentence reduction under §3582(c)(2). 

Furthermore, Defendant’s reliance on Booker v. Washington, is misplaced. Booker does not

apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1120 (9th

Cir. 2005), and Defendant’s claims are DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 3:05-cv-05659-FDB Document 7 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 - 3

The clerk of the court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of

record.

DATED this 30th day of March, 2006.

A 

The Honorable Franklin D. Burgess

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05659-FDB Document 7 Filed 03/30/06 Page 3 of 3