USA v. Escamilla

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALEJANDRO ESCAMILLA,
Defendant.
8:23CR48
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Alejandro Escamilla’s (“Escamilla”), pro se
motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Filing No. 62).
Escamilla pleaded guilty to a two-count Indictment (Filing No. 1). Count I charged
him with conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more
of a methamphetamine mixture or substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)
and 846. Count II alleged that he did knowingly use and carry a firearm in furtherance of
drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). 	Escamilla pleaded guilty to
Count I on January 5, 2024, and to Count II on April 11, 2024. Escamilla was sentenced
on August 2, 2024, to 168 months on Count I and 60 months on Count II, to be served
consecutively (for a total of 228 months).
The government filed a brief in response (Filing No. 63) to Escamilla’s motion. The
matter is now ripe for decision.
Escamilla claims:
I have been informed that the U.S. Sentencing Commission has recently made an
amendment to the U.S.S.G. Manual, specifically to Chapter 4, §4A1.1(d). 	As
applied the amendment allows for a two level decrease to defendents [sic] originally
senteced 	[sic] 	offense 	level. 	The 	retroactive 	application 	was 	passed 	on
November 1st with an expected implementation date of February 1st, 2024.
8:23-cr-00048-RFR-MDN Doc # 64 Filed: 01/21/26 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
(Filing No. 62 at 1). 	The Court has viewed Escamilla’s submission along with the court
file and specifically the Revised Presentence Investigation Report (“RPSR”) (Filing
No. 60). 	A review of the RPSR reveals that Escamilla was not assessed any criminal
history points. The two-level adjustment he is seeking is likely referring to the “zero-point
offender” provisions of U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. Unfortunately for Escamilla, however, Count II
of the Indictment was a firearms offense under § 924(c)(1)(A). As a result, Escamilla does
not qualify for zero-point offender relief. See U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(7).
Escamilla’s request for relief is therefore denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 21st day of January 2026.
BY THE COURT:
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
8:23-cr-00048-RFR-MDN Doc # 64 Filed: 01/21/26 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>