govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_16-cr-00114-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 v. 
 
BOBBY GUTIERREZ, 
 Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 3:16-cr-0114 (VAB) 
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE 
Bobby Gutierrez (“Defendant”) has filed a pro se motion to reduce his sentence under 18 
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Mot. for Reduction of Sentence, ECF No. 547 (“Mot.”). 
The Government opposes a reduction in sentence. See Mem. in Opp. to Def.’s Mot. for 
Reduction of Sentence, ECF No. 549 (“Mem. in Opp.”). 
For the following reasons set forth below, Mr. Gutierrez’s motion to reduce his sentence 
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is GRANTED. 
I. BACKGROUND 
On November 21, 2016, Mr. Gutierrez pled guilty to Counts One and Two of a three-
count indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, five 
kilograms or more of cocaine and one kilogram or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. 
§§846, 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 841(b)(A)(i). Plea Agreement, ECF No. 146. 
 On April 24, 2017, the Court sentenced Mr. Gutierrez to a term of imprisonment of 160 
months on Counts One and Two, to be served concurrently; a five-year term of supervised 
release; and a special assessment of $200. Judgment, ECF No. 308. Count Three was dismissed 
upon the Government’s oral motion. Minute Entry, ECF No. 295. 

2 
On July 9, 2020, Mr. Gutierrez filed a motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step 
Act. First Mot. to Reduce Sentence, ECF No. 477. 
On August 3, 2020, the Court denied this motion. Ruling and Order on First Step Act 
Mot., ECF No. 485 (“Order on First Step Act Mot.”). 
On December 26, 2023, Mr. Gutierrez filed a pro se motion to reduce his sentence under 
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Mot. for Reduction of Sentence, ECF No. 531 (December 26, 2023). 
On January 5, 2024, the Probation Office filed a supplemental presentence investigation 
report and sentencing recommendation related to Mr. Gutierrez’s motions. Presentence 
Investigation Report, ECF No. 532; Sealed Sentencing Recommendation, ECF No. 533 
(“Sentencing Rec.”). 
On January 29, 2024, counsel for Mr. Gutierrez filed a motion to reduce sentence under 
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Mot. to Reduce Sentence, ECF No. 539. 
On February 5, 2024, the Government filed a response to both motions to reduce 
sentence. Response re Mot. to Reduce Sentence, ECF No. 540 (“Response”). 
On February 7, 2024, Mr. Gutierrez filed a reply to the Government’s response. Reply, 
ECF No. 541. 
On December 20, 2024, the Court denied Mr. Gutierrez’s motion to reduce sentence. 
Order on Mot. to Reduce Sentence. ECF No. 546 (“Order”). 
On January 30, 2025, the Bureau of Prisons released Mr. Gutierrez to community custody 
at the Tampa Residential Re-entry Center, which is operated by GEO Group. Mot. at 2. 
On April 24, 2025, the Bureau of Prisons transferred Gutierrez to home confinement in 
Brandon, Florida. Id 

3 
On January 12, 2026, Mr. Gutierrez pro se filed a renewed motion to reduce his sentence. 
Mot. 
On February 10, 2026, the Government filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion 
for sentence reduction. Mem. in Opp. 
On March 6, 2026, Mr. Gutierrez filed a reply to the Government’s memorandum in 
opposition. Reply to Response, ECF No. 550 (“Reply”). 
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), “a federal court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if the 
defendant was originally sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that 
has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission when that modification is made 
retroactive.” United States v. Elendu, No. 20-CR-179-14 (DLC), 2024 WL 458643, at *2 
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2024) (citing United States v. Martin, 974 F.3d 124, 136, 139 (2d Cir. 2020)). 
Courts must arrive at two conclusions before applying a retroactive guidelines 
amendment to a particular sentence: (1) “the court must find that a defendant is eligible for a 
reduction”; and (2) “the court, in its discretion, must find that a reduction is merited.” United 
States v. Blackwell, No. 3:20-CR-126-4 (OAW), 2024 WL 489155, at *1 (D. Conn. Feb. 8, 2024) 
(citing Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010)). 
“[A] court may reduce the term of imprisonment after considering the factors set forth in 
section 3553(a)[,] and if such reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by 
the Sentencing Commission” in U.S.S.C. § 1B1.10. Martin, 974 F.3d at 136 (citation omitted). A 
reduction in sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is not a plenary sentencing, Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827, and 
generally, courts may not reduce a term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2) “to a term that is 

4 
less than the minimum term of imprisonment specified by a subsequently lowered Guidelines 
range,” United States v. Young, 998 F.3d 43, 46 n.1 (2d Cir. 2021). 
III. DISCUSSION 
“Amendment 821 went into effect on November 1, 2023, and was made retroactive by 
the United States Sentencing Commission.” United States v. Akintola, No. 21 CR. 472-3 (KPF), 
2024 WL 1555304, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2024) (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d)). “Part A of 
Amendment 821 modified the calculation of ‘status points’ added to a defendant's criminal 
history score under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. . . . Amendment 821 eliminated [subsection 4A1.1(d)] and 
replaced it with the following provision: ‘Add 1 point if the defendant (1) receives 7 or more 
points under subsections (a) through (d), and (2) committed the instant offense while under any 
criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work 
release, or escape status.’ Id.; U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e).” United States v. Lucas, No. 22-cr-290, 2024 
WL 3718658, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2024). 
Both parties agree that, under Amendment 821, Mr. Gutierrez would not be assessed any 
“status points,” whereas under the previously guidelines he would have been assessed two status 
points. See Response at 9–10; Mot. at 1. Two fewer status points places Mr. Gutierrez in criminal 
history category III, instead of category IV. See Response at 10–11; Mot. at 1. When the Court 
first sentenced Mr. Gutierrez, the sentencing guideline range was 135 to 168 months. See PSR at 
2. The adjusted sentencing guideline range is 121 to 151 months. See Mot. at 1; see also PSR at 
2. Therefore, Mr. Gutierrez is eligible for a reduction. See Dillon, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (“A court 
must first determine that a reduction is consistent with § 1B1.10[.]”). 
The Court denied Mr. Gutierrez’s December 2024 motion to reduce his sentence after 
“consider[ing] whether the authorized reduction [was] warranted, either in whole or in part, 

5 
according to the factors set forth in § 3553(a).” Id. The Court recognized Mr. Gutierrez’s positive 
efforts while incarcerated, including “taking classes and having no disciplinary record for [that] 
period of [time].” Order at 5. Nonetheless, the Court denied the motion because “[t]he Section 
3553(a) factors and Mr. Gutierrez’s criminal history . . . weigh[ed] against reducing his 
sentence.” Id. Mr. Gutierrez committed the offense connected to this sentence “while on 
supervised release from a 151-month sentence for drug trafficking.” Id. The Court decided that 
since “the current offense occurred while on supervised release from a 151 month sentence – the 
previously imposed sentence of 160 months is still warranted to ‘reflect the seriousness of the 
offense’ and ‘afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.’” Id. (internal citations omitted). 
Mr. Gutierrez argues that his conduct since the prior motion shows his continued 
progress, exhibiting his rehabilitation and rendering “the continued service of the original 160-
month term [to be] greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing.” Mot. at 3. Mr. 
Gutierrez requests that the Court reduce his term of imprisonment from 160 to a range of 121 to 
151 months, which fits within the amended guidelines. In the alternative, Mr. Gutierrez requests 
a reduction to time served “in light of his successful community transition while leaving intact 
all other provisions of the Judgment (ECF No. 308), including the five-year term of supervised 
release.” Mot. at 3. 
Since his transfer to community custody in January 2025, Mr. Gutierrez has maintained 
consistent employment, fulfilled all requirements of his supervision, and maintained a drug-free 
lifestyle. Id. In April of 2025, the Bureau of Prisons transferred him to home confinement on 
account of his good behavior. Id. Mr. Gutierrez has “remained under supervision without 
disciplinary incident or violation” and his “supervising staff confirm full compliance with all 
conditions” of his home confinement. Id. at 2. Mr. Gutierrez argues that “[h]e has thus addressed 

6 
the Court’s earlier concern about his ability to desist from criminal activity once back in the 
community.” Id. Instead of reverting to criminal activity, he has “demonstrate[d] genuine 
rehabilitation and successful community reintegration – precisely the type of conduct the Court 
sought to encourage when it imposed the original sentence.” Id. at 2. 
Mr. Gutierrez argues that these positive developments affect the balance of factors 
enumerated in Section 3553. He argues that men of his age, 46, are at a statistically lower rate of 
recidivism. Id.; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Given that “actual performance in the community is the 
strongest indicator of future behavior,” Mr. Gutierrez argues that his “spotless record” upon 
release into community custody “shows that he poses no danger and that specific deterrence has 
been achieved.” Mot. at 3; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B)-(C). Next, he argues that his good conduct 
proves that “[h]is sentence has already accomplished its goal of deterrence and punishment, and 
further imprisonment would not meaningfully enhance public safety.” Id. Mr. Gutierrez argues 
that the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing discrepancies under Section 3553(a)(6) supports a 
reduction in his sentence. Id. at 3. Mr. Gutierrez argues that because he “has served the 
substantial majority of his sentence continuing to require full service of the remaining term 
provides little additional deterrent value.” Id. at 2. 
Furthermore, Mr. Gutierrez argues that the court should reduce his sentence because 
restrictions under confinement have caused him hardship in his professional and personal life, 
which hinders reintegration into society. Reply at 4. Specifically, the terms of confinement 
caused Mr. Gutierrez to lose a better paying job opportunity. Id. Mr. Gutierrez was offered a 
position at CoverageX which paid more than his current position, but CoverageX rescinded the 
employment offer because they were “unable to meet the additional conditions being requested 
by [the group that supervises Mr. Gutierrez’s confinement].” Mot. at 16. CoverageX noted their 

7 
“decision [was] based solely on the external conditions of employment and not on [Mr. 
Gutierrez’s] qualifications or performance.” Id. 
Mr. Gutierrez argues that the terms of his home confinement have made it difficult to 
participate in his nine-year-old son’s life. Id. The distance restrictions have kept Mr. Gutierrez 
from attending his son’s sports games and practices. Id. Mr. Gutierrez attempted to get an 
exemption to see his son’s activities multiple times using the proper administrative remedies but 
has been unsuccessful. Id. Mr. Gutierrez argues that these hurdles, combined with “the 
compelling post-sentencing developments demonstrat[e] rehabilitation and stable community 
reintegration” suggest the Court should reduce his sentence. Reply at 4. 
 The Government opposes the motion and argues that Mr. Gutierrez should serve out his 
full term, since the reasoning for the Court’s initial denial still applies today. Mem. in Opp. at 1-
2. The Government argues that since Mr. Gutierrez committed the underlying offense while on 
supervised release for a prior crime, a reduction in his sentence would therefore “both undermine 
the sentencing goals that his original sentence was designed to promote, and would also run a 
risk of inflicting harm to the community.” Id. at 2-3. The Government argues that “Mr. Gutierrez 
has been rewarded for his hard work with home confinement,” but continued supervision is 
necessary “to ensure his continued success and deter the possibility that he reverts to criminal 
activity.” Id. 
 The Court disagrees. 
Mr. Gutierrez’s conduct since release to community custody shows that the Section 
3553(a) factors no longer weigh against a reduced sentence. Mr. Gutierrez’s compliance with 
home confinement, including his consistent employment, indicates that there is no longer a 
factual basis for suggesting that he continues to pose a threat to the community and that he has 

8 
been successfully rehabilitated without the need for the heightened sentence. Mot. at 3. After Mr. 
Gutierrez’s transfer to community custody, he was hired by Future Coil Inc. as a full-time 
employee. Id. Mr. Gutierrez continues to work for Future Coil, which “has verified consistent 
attendance, good performance, and reliability.” Id. His supervising staff at GEO Group have 
reported his compliance with all conditions of his home confinement. Id. 
A reduction in sentence will also allow Mr. Gutierrez to pursue professional opportunities 
and cultivate personal relationships that will aid his reintegration into the community and 
promote his continued good behavior. Since his release to community custody, Mr. Gutierrez has 
remained drug-free and consistently paid child support. Id. at 3, 13. A reduction in sentence will 
allow Mr. Gutierrez to be meaningfully involved in his nine-year-old son’s life and to care for 
his mother, who requires support. Id. at 6-7. 
Accordingly, after considering the Section 3553(a) factors, the Court will grant Mr. 
Gutierrez’s motion and his sentence shall be reduced to 151 months,1 a sentence which reflects 
the seriousness of Mr. Gutierrez’s offense and is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to 
achieve the statutory goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Gutierrez’s motion to reduce his sentence is GRANTED. 
His sentence will be reduced to 151 months, with five years of supervised release to follow. 
SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut, this 22nd day of May, 2026. 
/s/ Victor A. Bolden 
VICTOR A. BOLDEN 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
1 The parties acknowledge that Mr. Gutierrez’s current release date is set for October 5, 2026. Mem. in Opp. at 2; 
Mot. at 7. Thus, even imposing the maximum sentence of 151 months under the amended guidelines, Mr. 
Gutierrez’s release date will be immediate. 

Passage view · GavelSight