United States of America v. Mario Colunga

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted March 5, 2025*
Decided March 6, 2025
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2305
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARIO COLUNGA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Hammond Division.
No. 2:17-CR-138-PPS
Philip P. Simon,
Judge.
O R D E R
Mario Colunga appeals the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on a recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. The
district court denied the motion because the amendment would not lower his
sentencing range and, in any event, the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
weighed against lowering his sentence. We affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-2305 Page 2
In 2019, Colunga pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to participate in
racketeering activity, see 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), based on his involvement with the Latin
Dragon Nation street gang and his participation in a murder. The district court,
adopting the presentence investigation report prepared by the probation office, initially
calculated a guidelines range of life in prison (based on a total offense level of 43 and a
criminal history category of III). See U.S.S.G. § 2E1.1(a)(2); U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A. The court
then granted the government’s motion for an eight-level downward departure under
U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 based on Colunga’s substantial assistance, reducing the guidelines
range to 210–262 months. The court sentenced Colunga to the bottom of that range, 210
months, as well as 2 years’ supervised release.
In 2024, Colunga moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) to reduce his sentence based
on a new amendment to the Guidelines, Amendment 821, that lowered his criminal
history category. Amendment 821 (the relevant part of which applies retroactively, see
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) (2023)), removed two criminal history points from the criminal
history score for defendants like Colunga who committed their offense while serving
another sentence, compare id. § 4A1.1(d) (2001), with id. § 4A1.1(e) (2023). This had the
effect of lowering Colunga’s criminal history category from III to II. The district court
denied the motion. The court explained that lowering Colunga’s criminal history
category did not lower his sentencing range, which remained life, given Colunga’s
unchanged total offense level of 43. See U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A. And even if Colunga were
eligible for a sentence reduction, the court added, the § 3553(a) factors—specifically, the
seriousness of the murder (“as offensive and serious as it can get”)—weighed against
early release. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A).
On appeal, Colunga argues that the district court failed to follow Hughes v.
United States, 584 U.S. 675, 681 (2018), which authorizes courts to reduce the sentence of
a prisoner who was sentenced based on a guidelines range that would have been lower
had the retroactive amendment been in place when he was sentenced. But Hughes
limited its holding to binding plea agreements under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). See 584 U.S. at 682; United States v. Guerrero, 946 F.3d 983, 990 (7th
Cir. 2020). It does not bear upon Colunga’s situation, in which he entered a nonbinding
agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(B). Regardless, the district court correctly denied
Colunga’s motion because Amendment 821 did not lower his sentencing range under
the Guidelines. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010).
Next, Colunga argues that the district court mischaracterized his conviction as a
murder—rather than racketeering conspiracy—when weighing the § 3553(a) factors.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-2305 Page 3
But the court committed no error. The court had broad discretion to consider any
information relevant to the § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Williams, 61 F.4th 521,
523 (7th Cir. 2023), and Colunga admitted in his plea agreement that, as part of his
involvement with the gang, he participated in the murder of Mike Whitford.
Colunga lastly challenges the court’s assessment of the § 3553(a) factors—
specifically, arguing that it failed to account for his post-sentencing conduct and
rehabilitation effort. But a court need provide just one good reason to deny a sentence
reduction. See United States v. Ugbah, 4 F.4th 595, 598 (7th Cir. 2021). The court here
appropriately highlighted the seriousness of the murder, thus Colunga’s claim fails.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --