USA v. Delacruz et al

- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Jose Luis Delacruz,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:14-cr-00047
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
[¶ 1] 	THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion to Reduce Sentence filed by the
Defendant on November 5, 2024. Doc. No. 507. The United States filed a Response on January
16, 2025. Doc. No. 512. The Defendant filed a Reply on February 18, 2025. Doc. No. 514. On
June 8, 2026, the United States filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority. Doc. No. 518. The
Defendant responded to this supplemental authority on July 13, 2026. Doc. No. 519. For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
[¶ 2] 	On May 13, 2025, a jury found the Defendant Guilty of: (1) Conspiracy to Possess with
Intent to Distribute and Distribute a Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and 846; and (2) Use of a Firearm During a Drug Trafficking Crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A). Doc. No. 233, pp. 1-3. Due to the Defendant’s two prior convictions and the jury’s
finding the conspiracy involved 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a
detectable amount of methamphetamine, the Defendant was sentenced to a mandatory term of life
imprisonment on April 25, 2016. Doc. No. 354. The Judgment was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit
on appeal on July 31, 2017. Doc. Nos. 399, 399-1.
Case 2:14-cr-00047-PDW Document 520 Filed 07/20/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
[¶ 3] 	In 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act, reducing penalties for violations of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c). United States v. Loggins, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 1994093, at *1 (8th Cir. 2026). The
First Step Act, however, was not made retroactive and only applies to those sentenced after the
passage of the Act. Id. Also part of the First Step Act is a provision that allows for the Court to
consider a sentencing reduction based upon “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). In 2023, the United States Sentencing Commission adopted a change in its Policy
Statement at § 1B1.13. Relevant here, the Sentencing Commission provided:
UNUSUALLY LONG SENTENCE .—If a defendant received an unusually long sentence
and has served at least 10 years of the term of imprisonment, a change in the law
(other than an amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not been made
retroactive) may be considered in determining whether the defendant presents an
extraordinary and compelling reason, but only where such change would produce
a gross disparity between the sentence being served and the sentence likely to be
imposed at the time the motion is filed, and after full consideration of the
defendant’s individualized circumstances.
LIMITATION ON 	CHANGES IN 	LAW.—Except 	as 	provided 	in 	[the 	previous
subsection], a change in the law (including an amendment to the Guidelines Manual
that has not been made retroactive) shall not be considered for purposes of
determining whether an extraordinary and compelling reason exists under this
policy statement. However, if a defendant otherwise establishes that extraordinary
and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction under this policy statement, a
change in the law (including an amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not
been made retroactive) may be considered for purposes of determining the extent
of any such reduction.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6), (c).
DISCUSSION
[¶ 4] 	The Defendant asks the Court to grant him compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6) based upon the First Step Act’s non-retroactive
change in law that would result in a lesser sentence had he been sentenced today. The United States
resists this motion arguing the Sentencing Commission overstepped its authority by allow courts
to reduce a defendant’s sentence when Congress did not make the change in law retroactive.
Case 2:14-cr-00047-PDW Document 520 Filed 07/20/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
[¶ 5] 	This question was recently decided by the Supreme Court and applied by the Eighth
Circuit. In Rutherford v. United States, the Supreme Court held “[t]he statutory text and structure
make clear that Congress’s nonretroactive change to § 924(c)—considered by itself or in
combination with other factors—cannot make a prisoner eligible for compassionate release. To the
extent that it counsels otherwise, the Commission’s policy statement [found at U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13(b)(6)] is invalid.” 608 U.S. ----, 146 S. Ct. 1320, 1335 (2026). In Loggins, the Eighth
Circuit applied Rutherford, holding, “[c]onsistent with the Supreme Court’s binding decision in
Rutherford, we hold that the First Step Act’s nonretroactive statutory changes to § 924(c), like
other nonretroactive legal changes, cannot, whether offered alone or in combination with other
insufficient factual considerations, constitute ‘extraordinary and compelling’ reasons for a
sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).” 2026 WL 1994093, at *3 .
[¶ 6] 	This Court is not free to disregard these binding precedents and the Defendant’s request to
have the nonretroactive amendments to § 924(c) apply to him necessarily fails. See Mallory v.
Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122, 136 (2023) (explaining lower courts are bound to
follow cases that directly control the issue in the case); Hood v. United States, 342 F.3d 861, 864
(8th Cir. 2003) (“The District Court, however, is bound, as we are, to apply the precedent of this
Circuit.”).
[¶ 7] 	The Defendant also asks the Court to make an “individualized analysis required by
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)” to determine whether extraordinary and compelling circumstances justify a
sentencing 	reduction. 	Doc. 	No. 	519, 	p. 	4. 	The 	Defendant 	specifically 	claims
he has undergone a remarkable transformation, demonstrating sustained rehabilitation through his
conduct, educational and vocational efforts, institutional adjustment, and commitment to self-
improvement.” Id. at 10.
Case 2:14-cr-00047-PDW Document 520 Filed 07/20/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
[¶ 8] 	Upon consideration of the entire record in this matter, the Defendant has not shown
sufficient extraordinary and compelling reasons to justify a sentence reduction. The Court has
considered the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and concludes a reduction in sentence is not
warranted because the Defendant continues to pose a significant danger to the community, even
though he may be doing well while in confinement. The Court previously concluded (Doc. No.
499) the Defendant’s significant violence in this conspiracy coupled with the large quantities of
methamphetamine involved in the conspiracy shows he is a significant danger to the community.
Doc. No. 499, pp. 8–9. Nothing in the record changes that analysis and the Court adopts it in full.
Accordingly, given the large quantities of drugs involved in this case coupled with the Defendant’s
extremely violent behavior, the Court would not reduce his sentence based upon a review of the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
CONCLUSION
[¶ 9] 	For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence is DENIED.
[¶ 10] IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED July 20, 2026.
Daniel M. Traynor, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 2:14-cr-00047-PDW Document 520 Filed 07/20/26 Page 4 of 4