United States of America v. Agustin Gomez-Rojas

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6580
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AGUSTIN GOMEZ-ROJAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00308-D-1)
Submitted: November 20, 2025 Decided: November 25, 2025
Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Agustin Gomez-Rojas, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Agustin Gomez-Rojas appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 to the
Sentencing Guidelines. Part A of Amendment 821 limits the impact of “status points,”
which are “additional criminal history points given to defendants for the fact of having
committed the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence, including probation,
parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status.” U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n.7 (2024).
“We review a district court’s decision [whether] to reduce a sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). Our
review of the record reveals no error. The court understood its authority to reduce Gomez-
Rojas’s sentence and recognized Gomez-Rojas’s postsentencing rehabilitative conduct, but
the court declined to grant a reduction based on its review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors.
Accordingly, we deny Gomez-Rojas’s motions to appoint counsel and to waive
service, and we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Gomez-Rojas, No. 5:19-
cr-308-D-1 (E.D.N.C. July 15, 2025). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --