1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

ALEJANDRO VALDEZ, a/k/a SANDY 

ANTONIO,

Defendant.

 Crim. No. 11-cr-0488 (WJM)

 OPINION

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:

The Court sentenced Defendant Sandy Antonio (“Mr. Antonio” or 

“Defendant”) on April 18, 2012 to a statutory minimum of 120 months for 

conspiring to manufacture and distribute more than one kilogram of heroin. There 

are two pro se motions pending. First, Mr. Antonio moves the Court to reconsider 

its April 30, 2015 denial of Mr. Antonio’s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582. Second, Mr. Antonio moves the Court to compel the Government to 

file a Rule 35 motion to reduce Mr. Antonio’s sentence for substantial assistance. 

For the reasons below, both motions are DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant was sentenced on April 18, 2012 to a prison term of 120 months, 

the mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) for conspiracy to manufacture 

and distribute at least one kilogram of heroin. ECF No. 89. At sentencing, the Court 

declined to apply the “safety valve” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553, which provides 

courts with discretion to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum if a 

defendant provides “substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another 

person.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)(1)-(2). See ECF No. 94, 15:12-15. The Court 

determined that Mr. Antonio failed to provide substantial assistance. 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(f)(5). See Transcript of Sentencing Hearing, ECF No. 94, 13:1-15:25.

On January 30, 2015, Mr. Antonio moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 for 

retroactive application of a 2014 Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines

Case 2:11-cr-00488-WJM Document 106 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 446
2

(“Amendment 782”) that reduced drug sentences by two years. ECF No. 98. The 

Court denied the motion by order dated April 30, 2015. ECF No. 99. Mr. Antonio

moved the Court on September 2, 2015 to reconsider its decision. ECF. 102. He has 

also moved to compel the Government to file a Rule 35 motion for sentence 

reduction, for which Mr. Antonio requests an expedited determination. ECF No. 104. 

The Court now considers both motions. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Denial under 18 U.S.C. § 3582

A motion for reconsideration “is a limited vehicle used ‘to correct manifest 

errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Jackson v. City of 

Philadelphia, 535 Fed. Appx. 64, 69 (3d Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). It succeeds 

only in three narrow circumstances: “(1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the 

availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent 

manifest injustice.” Id.

Here, there is no reason to alter the Court’s judgment. As Mr. Antonio 

observes, Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines reduces sentences for most 

federal drug crimes by two years, and federal law provides for amendments of the 

Guidelines to apply retroactively. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). But retroactive 

sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2) only apply to sentences based on the 

Guidelines, not those imposed pursuant to a statutory minimum. See United States 

v. Ortiz-Vega, 744 F.3d 869, 873 (3d Cir. 2014) (“[I]f a defendant is subjected to a 

mandatory minimum, he or she would not be given a sentence ‘based on a sentencing 

range that has subsequently been lowered.’”). Because Mr. Antonio was sentenced 

under a statutory minimum and not pursuant to a sentencing range under the 

Guidelines, Amendment 782 does not affect his sentence. 

B. Motion to Compel the Government to File a Rule 35 Motion 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 authorizes the government to move for 

a sentence reduction for a defendant who provides “substantial assistance.” Fed. R.

Crim. P. 35(b)(1)-(2). Rule 35 does not provide a mechanism for compelling the 

government to file for a sentence reduction; the government must file on its own 

accord. United States v. Obeid, 707 F.3d 898, 900-01 (7th Cir. 2013). Further, the 

government’s decision not to file a Rule 35 motion appears well-grounded, as the 

record does not indicate that Mr. Antonio provided substantial assistance to the 

government. 

Case 2:11-cr-00488-WJM Document 106 Filed 11/21/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 447
3

Mr. Antonio should be commended for the positive steps he has taken while 

incarcerated. Unfortunately, the Court has no legal basis for reducing his sentence. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Defendant’s motions are DENIED.

 

/s/ William J. Martini

 WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

November 21, 2016

Case 2:11-cr-00488-WJM Document 106 Filed 11/21/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 448