govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_24-cr-00257-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
United States of America, 
 
  P l a i n t i f f ,      MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 v .        AND ORDER 
        Criminal No. 24-257 ADM/DLM 
Jaime Rojas-Mondragon,  
 
  Defendant. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
Jaime Rojas-Mondragon, pro se. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
I.  INTRODUCTION 
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on 
Defendant Jaime Rojas-Mondragon’s (“Rojas-Mondragon”) Motion for Sentence Reduction 
[Docket No. 54].  For the reasons stated below, the Motion is denied.   
II.  BACKGROUND 
 On December 5, 2024, Rojas-Mondragon entered a plea of guilty to Possession with 
Intent to Distribute 500 Grams or More of a Mixture or Substance Containing a Detectable 
Amount of Methamphetamine, in violation 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A).  Minute 
Entry [Docket No. 25]; Plea Agreement [Docket No. 27].  Rojas-Mondragon admitted that in 
July 2024, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at his residence and found 
approximately 900 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine that Rojas-Mondragon 
intended to sell.  Plea Agreement ¶  2.  The officers also found a semi-automatic pistol that 
Rojas-Mondragon possessed in connection with the drug trafficking offense.  Id.   
On April 15, 2025, the Court sentenced Rojas-Mondragon to the mandatory minimum 
term of 120 months.  Sentencing J. [Docket No. 46].  Due to administrative failures by the 
CASE 0:24-cr-00257-ADM-DLM     Doc. 56     Filed 03/12/26     Page 1 of 4
2 
 
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), Rojas-Mondragon remains in Sherburne County Jail (“SCJ”) 
awaiting transfer to a BOP facility.  Rojas-Mondragon has spent an unusually lengthy period of 
time in local custody awaiting designation by the BOP.   
 Rojas-Mondragon has filed the present motion to reduce his sentence, arguing that during 
the many months he has spent waiting to be transferred from SCJ to a BOP facility, he has been 
unable to accrue “Good Time Credit” with the BOP and does not have access to BOP 
programming that would allow him to earn credits toward his sentence.  Mot. at 2-3.  Rojas-
Mondragon also argues that he has been forced to do “hard time” in SCJ and should be 
compensated with credits toward his sentence.  Id. at 4-6.  He thus asks the Court to reduce his 
mandatory minimum 120-month sentence by 40 months to compensate him for “hard time” 
served.  See Mot. Reduce Sentence at 2, 4. 
III.  DISCUSSION 
 Generally, a “court may not m odify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.”  
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).  Indeed, “[a] judgment of conviction that includes a sentence of 
imprisonment constitutes a final judgment and may not be modified by a district court except in 
limited circumstances.”  Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010) (citing § 3582(b)).  
Under § 3582(c), a sentence can only be modified if the compassionate release provisions of 
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) are satisfied, a correction pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 is warranted, or the 
Sentencing Commission has subsequently lowered a defendant’s sentencing range.   
None of these three limited exceptions apply here.  Although Rojas-Mondragon is 
understandably frustrated with the delay in being transferred to a designated BOP facility, his 
circumstances are not sufficiently extraordinary or compelling to warrant relief under 
CASE 0:24-cr-00257-ADM-DLM     Doc. 56     Filed 03/12/26     Page 2 of 4
3 
 
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).  Rojas-Mondragon does not argue that Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 applies or that the 
Sentencing Commission lowered his sentencing range after he was sentenced. 
Not only does § 3582(c) generally prohibit a court from modifying a defendant’s prison 
term, no federal statute, rule, or regulation authorizes a district court to award credit for “hard 
time served” after a defendant has been sentenced.  Muskin v. Fikes, No. 20-CV-1401, 2021 WL 
11430647, at *3 (D. Minn. Mar. 5, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 20-CV-1401, 
2021 WL 11430648 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2021); United States v. Bear, No. 1:19-CR-10034-01, 
2021 WL 1925488, at *1 (D.S.D. May 13, 2021).  Rather, once a defendant is sentenced, it is the 
BOP, not the district court, that determines the credit for time served.  United States v. Pardue, 
363 F.3d 695, 699 (8th Cir. 2004); United States v. Harris, 318 F. App’x 444, 446 (8th Cir. 
2009).  A defendant wishing to challenge the calculation of time served must first exhaust his 
administrative remedies with the BOP.  Pardue, 363 F.3d at 699.  If the defendant disagrees with 
the BOP’s determination, he may seek review of the jail-time credit determination by filing a 
habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district where he is confined.  Id. (citing Rogers v. 
United States, 180 F.3d 349, 358 (1st Cir. 1999)).  As a result, Rojas-Mondragon must first 
exhaust his administrative remedies with the BOP.   
Finally, Rojas-Mondragon argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under 
28 U.S.C. § 2255.  Mot. at 1.  This statute provides a person in federal custody with a limited 
opportunity to collaterally attack the constitutionality, jurisdictional basis, or legality of their 
sentence.  See United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979).  Rojas-Mondragon’s 
motion does not fit this description because he is challenging the execution of his sentence rather 
than its validity.  As such, the Court does not construe Rojas-Mondragon’s motion as one under 
§ 2255 but instead as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which must be brought in the district where he 
CASE 0:24-cr-00257-ADM-DLM     Doc. 56     Filed 03/12/26     Page 3 of 4
4 
 
is confined.  See Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 711 (8th Cir.2002) (“A petitioner may 
attack the execution of his sentence through § 2241 in the district where he is incarcerated; a 
challenge to the validity of the sentence itself must be brought under § 2255 in the district of the 
sentencing court.”).  Should Rojas-Mondragon choose to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2255 attacking the validity of his sentence, he must do so within the one-year limitations 
period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).     
IV.  CONCLUSION 
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Jaime Rojas-Mondragon’s Motion for Sentence 
Reduction [Docket No. 54] is DENIED. 
 
       B Y  T H E  C O U R T :  
 
 
                   s/Ann D. Montgomery 
Dated: March 12, 2026     ANN D. MONTGOMERY  
        U . S .  D I S T R I C T  C O U R T  
 
 
 
CASE 0:24-cr-00257-ADM-DLM     Doc. 56     Filed 03/12/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight