United States v. Vazquez-Serrano
1:16-cr-03049
D.N.M.Jul 2, 2025Background
- Jesus Alejandro Vazquez-Serrano was convicted in several federal cases involving illegal reentry and, separately, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; the latter case resulted in a sentence currently being served in the Western District of Missouri.
- Vazquez-Serrano filed a pro se motion in the District of New Mexico seeking a sentence reduction under Amendment 821, specifically referencing relief for his Missouri sentence.
- Vazquez-Serrano is no longer incarcerated for any crimes adjudicated in the District of New Mexico; his sentences there (8 months for illegal reentry, 6 months for supervised release violation) have been fully served.
- The sentence he now seeks to reduce was imposed by the Western District of Missouri, not the District of New Mexico.
- Jurisdiction to reduce a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) lies only with the sentencing court; district courts have only narrow, statutorily-defined authority to modify sentences.
- The District of New Mexico dismissed his motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the court have jurisdiction to modify a sentence not imposed by it? | Vazquez-Serrano sought a reduction in the Missouri sentence. | U.S. argues only sentencing court can reduce sentence. | Court lacks jurisdiction; only sentencing court can act. |
| Is a sentence for which Vazquez-Serrano is no longer incarcerated eligible for modification? | Seeks retroactive relief regardless of incarceration status. | U.S. argues sentence has been fully served; mootness. | Not eligible; sentence already served; issue moot. |
| Are supervised release violations eligible for retroactive guideline reduction? | No specific argument advanced on technical eligibility. | U.S. notes amendment doesn’t apply to revocations. | Reductions not authorized for supervised release revocations. |
| Application of USSG Amendment 821 | Argues he should benefit from retroactive changes. | U.S. argues amendment doesn’t apply to his facts. | Amendment doesn’t alter outcome; not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (explains once a sentence is fully served, court loses jurisdiction over sentencing-related motions)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (explains requirement of continuing injury or collateral consequence for post-sentence relief)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (only sentencing court can apply a retroactive guideline reduction)
- Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481 (Congress imposes express statutory limits on sentence modification under § 3582)