United States v. Amaya-Ortiz, Criminal No. 2012-0125

Jose Amaya-Ortiz pleaded guilty (Rule 11(c)(1)(C)) to conspiracy to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine; parties agreed to a 150‑month sentence (below Guidelines range) and 60 months supervised release.
At plea, parties calculated a Guidelines offense level of 35 (base level 36, +2 role adjustment §3B1.1, −3 acceptance §3E1.1), yielding a Guidelines range of 168–210 months; agreed sentence 150 months.
In 2015 Amaya‑Ortiz obtained a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782, lowering his sentence to 135 months.
Amaya‑Ortiz filed a pro se §2255 motion asserting entitlement to further reduction under Amendment 794 (2015), which revised §3B1.2 commentary to expand mitigating‑role considerations for substantially less culpable participants.
The court construed the filing as a §3582(c)(2) motion to modify sentence (not a §2255 collateral attack) and considered (1) whether Amendment 794 is retroactive and (2) whether Amaya‑Ortiz’s factual role would qualify him for a mitigating‑role reduction.
The record established Amaya‑Ortiz supervised multiple shipments, supplied large quantities (≈50 kg), supervised couriers, and arranged procurements; the court found he was a manager/supervisor, not a low‑level participant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amendment 794 is retroactively applicable under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2)	Amendment 794 is a clarifying amendment and thus retroactive	Government: Amendment 794 is not listed in §1B1.10(d); not shown retroactive	Court: Amendment 794 is not shown to be retroactive and reduction is not authorized under §3582(c)(2)
Whether defendant’s sentence should be reduced under Amendment 794 even if retroactive	Amaya‑Ortiz seeks 2–4 level mitigating role reduction under revised §3B1.2 commentary	Government: His prior §3B1.1 aggravating role and supervisory conduct make him ineligible as a low‑level participant	Court: Even if retroactive, facts show he was a manager/supervisor; not eligible for mitigating role reduction

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (discusses limits on post‑sentence modification and the role of the Sentencing Commission policy statement)
United States v. Gomez‑Valle, 828 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2016) (applied Amendment 794 analysis and held retroactivity question unnecessary where amendment would not change result)
United States v. Sanchez‑Villarreal, 857 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2017) (analyzed whether Amendment 794 is clarifying and treated it as clarifying)
United States v. Huff, 370 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2004) (sets out factors for deciding whether an amendment is clarifying or substantive)