United States of America v. Juan Ramirez Martinez, a/k/a Panda

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6939
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN RAMIREZ MARTINEZ, a/k/a Panda,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00029-FL-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024
Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Juan Ramirez Martinez, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juan Ramirez Martinez appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821. Amendment
821 was a multi-part amendment. Part A of Amendment 821, amending U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1,
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.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.7.
Part B of Amendment 821, U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, decreases a defendant’s offense level
by two levels for a defendant who did not receive any criminal history points and whose
offense did not involve certain aggravating factors.
We have reviewed the record and find that Martinez did not receive any status
points, rendering him ineligible for relief under Part A. Martinez did receive criminal
history points, rendering him ineligible for relief under Part B. The district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Martinez’s motion for a sentence reduction.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Martinez, No.
7:16-cr-29-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2024). 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 --