USA v. Moreno

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RONNIE MORENO,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR RELEASE
Before the Court at Docket 205 is Defendant Ronnie Moreno’s pro se
Motion for Sentence Reduction Under U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A). Defense counsel
filed an Amended Motion for Sentence Reduction Under U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
at Docket 216. 	The Government responded in opposition to the motion and the
amended motion at Docket 217. The motions were referred to the Honorable
Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. 	At Docket 220, Judge Reardon issued a
Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the motions for
compassionate release be denied without prejudice.
Mr. 	Moreno 	responded 	by 	filing 	pro 	se 	objections 	to 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation at Docket 224. In his objections, Mr. Moreno asserts that he is
factually innocent of the drug conspiracy crime, and that the judges in this case
have engaged in a “cover-up of factual innocence.” 1 He also asserts his “factual
1 Docket 224 at 1, 2.
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 230 Filed 03/01/24 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR, USA v. Moreno
Order re Motions for Release
Page 2 of 4
innocence” in his state law cases, including the First Degree Sexual Abuse of a
Minor Conviction, each of which he maintains has also been the subject of a
“cover-up.”2
Defense counsel responded to the Report and Recommendation by filing
Defendant Moreno’s Objection to Report and Recommendation at Docket 227,
objecting to (1) “the Court’s conclusion that the ‘status point’ change in the 2023
amendments to the USSG is not an extraordinary and compelling basis for
[compassionate release]”; and (2) “the 3553 factors militate against Mr. Moreno’s
release.”
Defense counsel also filed a “Motion to Amend CR Motion to Include
Related 	Basis 	for 	Release 	under 	18 	USC 	3582(c)(2)” 	at 	Docket 	226. 	The
Government filed a response in opposition to that motion at Docket 228.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) with
respect to Mr. Moreno’s first two motions for compassionate release. 	That
statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”3 A court is
to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.”4 	However, § 	636(b)(1) does not “require district court review of a
2 Docket 224 at 4, 5.
3 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
4 Id.
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 230 Filed 03/01/24 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR, USA v. Moreno
Order re Motions for Release
Page 3 of 4
magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard,
when neither party objects to those findings.”5
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny the pro se Motion
for 	Compassionate 	Release 	at 	Docket 	205 	and 	the 	Amended 	Motion 	for
Compassionate Release at Docket 216. 	The Court has reviewed the Final
Report and Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. 	With respect to the
counsel’s objections, the Court does not find that a retroactive amendment is an
extraordinary 	and 	compelling 	reason 	for 	a 	sentence 	reduction 	under 	§
3582(c)(1); 	rather, the fact that Congress provided by a separate section for
relief 	in 	those 	circumstances 	militates 	against 	finding 	that 	action 	to 	be
extraordinary and compelling. Relief for such a change in the guidelines must be
sought under subsection (c)(2). 	Further, on de novo review, the Court agrees
with the analysis of the Magistrate Judge with respect to the Section 3553(a)
factors, and concludes that the factors that the Magistrate Judge addressed do
not warrant a sentence reduction. Therefore, 	the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation, and IT IS ORDERED that the motions at Dockets 205 and 216
are each DENIED.
With 	respect 	to 	the 	second 	amended 	motion 	that 	seeks 	a 	sentence
reduction under subsection (c)(2) of the statute, the Court finds as follows:
5 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 230 Filed 03/01/24 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR, USA v. Moreno
Order re Motions for Release
Page 4 of 4
As set forth by the U.S. Probation, Mr. Moreno’s original guideline range
was 100 to 125 months, and he was sentenced to 120 months. 	With the
elimination of the two status points, his amended guideline range would be 87 to
108 months. 	But the Court finds, in addition to the Section 3553(a) factors
discussed by the Magistrate Judge and adopted above by this Court, that if Mr.
Moreno were to be sentenced now for the drug conspiracy charge, he would not
be eligible for the three level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, given his
recent and repeated assertions of factual innocence for that crime. 	Without that
three level reduction, his guideline range would be 121 to 151 months. 	And Mr.
Moreno continues to assert that he is innocent of the sexual abuse of the minor
of which he was convicted after a trial by jury. In these circumstances, the §
3553(a) factors of protecting the public and deterring Defendant from committing
further 	crimes 	further 	militate 	against 	the 	early 	release 	of 	Mr. 	Moreno.
Accordingly, the motion at Docket 226 if DENIED.
DATED this 1st day of March, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 230 Filed 03/01/24 Page 4 of 4