Case Information
*1 Case 3:20-cr-03380-GPC Document 97 Filed 05/29/25 PageID.336 Page 1 of 2 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 20-cr-03380-GPC-2 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S v. MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE MONICA MEDINA-ORTIZ, [ ECF No. 87 ]
Defendant.
On October 8, 2021, this Court convicted Monica Medina-Ortiz (“Defendant”) of one count of Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Distribute and one count of Possession of Fentanyl with Intent to Distribute, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). ECF No. 71. The Court sentenced Defendant to 49 months of imprisonment for each count to run concurrent, followed by three years of supervised release to follow. Id. at 2–3. [1]
24 On December 4, 2023, Defendant filed a pro se motion to reduce her sentence 25 under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) pursuant to the new zero-point offender provision of 26
27
28 [1] Page numbers reflect CM/ECF pagination.
[1]
20-cr-03380-GPC-2 *2 Case 3:20-cr-03380-GPC Document 97 Filed 05/29/25 PageID.337 Page 2 of 2 1 U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. ECF No. 87 at 3–4. On April 12, 2024, the government opposed, arguing that Defendant does not qualify for a reduced sentence under the zero-point offender provision because Defendant has one criminal history point. ECF No. 96 at 3.
A defendant’s offense level will be decreased by two levels if the defendant is a zero-point offender, meaning they “present zero criminal history points and satisfy the criteria listed in U.S.S.G § 4C1.1(a).” United States v. Valenzuela , 2024 WL 281644, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2024). U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(1) requires that a defendant “not receive any criminal history points.” Defendant asserts that she is entitled to a reduction in her sentence because her criminal history category is I. However, Defendant misreads the zero-point offender provision. It only applies to defendants with zero criminal history points, not to defendants in criminal history category I. Here, Defendant has one criminal history point based on a prior conviction. ECF No. 56 ¶ 33. Thus, Defendant is not a zero-point offender under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(1). Therefore, the Court declines to grant Defendant a sentence reduction based on the new zero-point offender provision under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1.
For the above reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to reduce her sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 29, 2025
[2]
20-cr-03380-GPC-2