govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-5_11-cr-40055-5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 v. 
 
ALEJANDRO OVIEDO-TAGLE, 
 
 Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Alejandro Oviedo-Tagle’s Pro Se Motion to 
Apply Supplemental Amendment 833 Mitigation Role (Doc. 146). The motion is fully briefed, 
and the Court is prepared to rule. For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses 
Defendant’s motion. 
I. Background 
On May 25, 2012, Defendant pled guilty to a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; namely, 
conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine.1 On 
April 1, 2013, the Court sentenced Defendant to 300 months’ imprisonment.2 This sentence was 
based on an offense level of 41 and criminal history category of I, resulting in a guidelines range 
of 324 to 405 months. The Court imposed a departure under the guidelines to reach a 300-month 
sentence. On January 23, 2015, the Court reduced Defendant’s sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 
3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. Amendment 782.3 Under the amended sentence, Defendant’s offense 
level was reduced by two levels, resulting in an amended guidelines range of 262 to 327 months’ 
 
1 Doc. 40 at 2. 
2 Doc. 71. 
3 Doc. 103. 

2 
imprisonment. The Court imposed a comparable departure to Defendant’s original sentence and 
modified his term of imprisonment to 238 months. 
On November 21, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for compassionate release and/or a 
sentence reduction under Amendment 821 on the basis that he is a “Zero-Point offender.”4 The 
Court denied in part and dismissed in part that motion. First, the Court explained that 
Amendment 821 bars relief as a Zero-Point offender because Defendant possessed a firearm in 
connection with the methamphetamine offense to which he pled guilty.5 Second, the Court 
dismissed Defendant’s compassionate release motion without prejudice for failure to 
demonstrate exhaustion of his administrative remedies.6 On December 19, 2024, the Court 
denied Defendant’s renewed motion for compassionate release on the merits, after he exhausted 
his administrative remedies.7 
In the instant motion, Defendant asks the Court for relief under Amendment 833 to the 
guidelines, which became effective on November 1, 2025.8 
II. Discussion 
 “Federal courts are forbidden, as a general matter, to modify a term of imprisonment once 
it has been imposed, but th[at] rule of finality is subject to a few narrow exceptions.”9 One of 
these exceptions is provided for in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which allows the Court to reduce a 
 
4 Doc. 135. 
5 Doc. 140 at 4. 
6 Id. at 6. 
7 Doc. 145. 
8 U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual app. C, vol. IV, amend. 833 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2025). 
9 United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821, 830 (10th Cir. 2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Freeman v. 
United States, 564 U.S. 522, 526 (2011)). 

3 
sentence for “a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a 
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 
In order to obtain a sentence reduction under this provision, Defendant must overcome 
three hurdles: (1) “under the statute’s ‘based on’ clause, the defendant must show he was 
sentenced based on a guideline range the Sentencing Commission lowered subsequent to 
defendant’s sentencing”; (2) under the statute’s “‘consistent with’ clause, the defendant must 
establish his request for a sentence reduction is consistent with the Commission’s policy 
statements related to § 3582(c)(2)”; and (3) “the defendant must convince the district court he is 
entitled to relief in light of the applicable sentencing factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).”10 
Failure to meet the first requirement is jurisdictional.11 
Amendment 833 expands the application of the mitigating-role adjustment in drug cases 
under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. But the Sentencing Commission has not made Amendment 833 
retroactively applicable to offenders who are currently incarcerated.12 Therefore, Defendant has 
not shown that he meets the statute’s “based on” clause, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to 
reduce his sentence under this provision. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Defendant’s 
motion for lack of jurisdiction. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant Alejandro Oviedo-
Tagle’s Pro Se Motion to Apply Supplemental Amendment 833 Mitigation Role (Doc. 146) is 
dismissed. 
 
10 United States v. C.D., 848 F.3d 1286, 1289–90 (10th Cir. 2017). 
11 Id. at 1289. 
12 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)&(d) (“In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment, and the 
guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the 
Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (d) below, the court may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment as 
provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).”). Amendment 833 is not listed under subsection (d). 

4 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 Dated: May 26, 2026 
 S/ Julie A. Robinson 
JULIE A. ROBINSON 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Passage view · GavelSight