Esparza claims that the combined effect of several different changes to the Guidelines now entitles him to a reduction in sentence.

USDC IN/ND case 2:10-cr-00109-JTM-APR document 1809 filed 12/12/24 page 2 of 3 receive any criminal history points under Chapter Four of the Guidelines and whose instant offense did not involve specified aggravating factors.

Esparza claims that he received two status points because he was on probation at the time he committed the offenses in this case, and therefore under Part A of Amendment 821 his criminal history score is reduced by one point, to a total criminal history score of 8.

Esparza has failed to establish that the cumulative effect of these amendments would be a decrease in his sentencing range.

Because his base offense level remains 43 (even after Amendment 782), his advisory Guideline range of Life is unchanged.

Part B of Amendment 821 created a new § 4C1.1 guideline that provides a decrease of two offense levels for offenders who did not receive any criminal history points under Chapter Four of the Guidelines and whose instant offense did not involve specified aggravating factors.

First, defendant does not qualify for a reduction in sentence under Part A, which limits the impact of status points on certain offenders’ criminal history calculation.

The amended presentence investigation report (PSR) indicates that defendant received two status points to his criminal history calculation.

Accordingly, because Part A of Amendment 821 does not have any effect on defendant’s guideline range, he is not entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2).

Defendant has criminal history points, and therefore he does not qualify for a sentence reduction under Part B, which provides for a decrease of two offense levels for certain offenders who did not receive any criminal history points.

Pursuant to General Order 2023-32 of this District, on February 5, 2024, the United States Probation Office filed an addendum to the Presentence Investigation Report reflecting that the Defendant is eligible for relief under the Amendment.

On March 16, 2024, the parties filed a joint statement in support of the Defendant’s motion, recommending that the Defendant’s sentence be reduced to 188 months.

At the second step, the Court considers any applicable § 3553(a) factors and determines whether, in the Court’s discretion, the authorized reduction is warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.

As to the step one analysis under Dillon, the Court agrees with the parties that the Defendant is eligible for resentencing as his original Guidelines range was reduced by a subsequent act of the Sentencing Commission.

In their joint statement, the parties’ recommendation that the Defendant’s sentence be reduced is based on a Guidelines adjustment for “status points,” which was the subject of a retroactive portion of Amendment 821.

... 970 filed 01/04/24 page 15 of 37 Wiegard v. Smith, No. 04-419-CJP, 2007 WL 853982, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2007) (denying motion for new trial where “defendant’s motion consists primarily of a laundry list of perfunctory points, none ...

] None of these statements were objected to at trial, including when Wardrip introduced himself.

On July 28, 2017, co- defendant Martin, armed with an AK-47 style rifle, rode in the stolen Tahoe with other individuals to the “Shine On” Car Wash in Gary, Indiana with the intent to rob Kevin Hood of cocaine and money.

[Id.] The government then alleges that Clarke, mentioned for the first time in the indictment, “walked up to Hood and shot him dead.” [Id.] Caldwell and Confidential Informant 2 were watching these events from a nearby parked vehicle.

In addition, the defendant’s showing of actual prejudice must be balanced against the policy encouraging judicial economy and the avoidance of lengthy, repetitious trials involving the same evidence and same witnesses.

There, the court found that a sworn affidavit from the movant’s attorney that he was informed by co-defendant’s counsel that co- defendant would be willing to testify on behalf of movant only after co-defendant was no longer subject to jeopardy “fails to satisfy the second part of this three-part test.” Lopez, 6 F.3d at 1285.

Additionally, any considerations in favor of judicial economy are diminished in the instant case because Defendant Martin has agreed to be joined in a severed trial with Clarke.

OPINION and ORDER This matter is before the court on defendant Emiliano Esparza’s motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and Section 603 of the First Step Act.

Pursuant to this court’s General Order 2020-11, the undersigned referred Esparza’s motion to the Northern District of Indiana Federal Community Defenders (FCD) to determine whether Esparza may be eligible for a reduction in sentence in accordance with Section 603 of the First Step Act.

The court may grant a moving defendant’s motion for compassionate release if: (1) the defendant has complied with the statute’s administrative exhaustion requirement; (2) “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warrant such a reduction; (3) the court has considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as applicable; and (4) the reduction is consistent with any USDC IN/ND case 2:10-cr-00109-JTM-APR document 1645 filed 12/10/21 page 3 of 6 applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.

There, the Sentencing Commission states that an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting a reduction in a term of imprisonment may exist where, as is relevant here: a defendant suffers from a serious physical or medical condition that “substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover;” or there exists some other extraordinary and compelling reason justifying a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment.

Accordingly, § 1B1.13 and its application notes provide useful – but not binding – guidance to courts in determining whether a defendant has identified an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release.

Clay argues in his motion that he suffers from obesity, hypertension, an enlarged heart, abnormal EKGs, hyperlipidemia, unspecified immuno-deficiency issues, and leukopenia.

Pursuant to this court’s General Order 2020-11, the undersigned referred Clay’s motion to the Northern District of Indiana Federal Community Defenders (FCD) to determine whether Clay may be eligible for a reduction in sentence in accordance with Section 603 of the First Step Act.

There, the Sentencing Commission states that an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting a reduction in a term of imprisonment may exist where, as is relevant here: a defendant suffers from a serious physical or medical condition that “substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to USDC IN/ND case 2:10-cr-00109-JTM-APR document 1566 filed 05/04/21 page 4 of 6 recover;” or there exists some other extraordinary and compelling reason justifying a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment.

Accordingly, § 1B1.13 and its application notes provide useful – but not binding – guidance to courts in determining whether a defendant has identified an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release.

The CDC also states that having hypertension, as well as certain other USDC IN/ND case 2:10-cr-00109-JTM-APR document 1566 filed 05/04/21 page 5 of 6 heart conditions, may make a person more likely to become severely ill from COVID-19.