USA v. Barraza Saenz et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARK A. BARRAZA SAENZ,
Defendant.
4:22-CR-3098
ORDER
The defendant has filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to
U.S.S.G. Amend. 821, made retroactive by U.S.S.G. Amend. 825. Filing 120.
The defendant relies on the adjustment for "zero-point" offenders in U.S.S.G.
§ 4C1.1. But the defendant is ineligible for that adjustment, for two reasons.
First, the defendant was not a "zero-point" offender. See § 4C1.1(a)(1).
He had a criminal history point. Filing 75 at 8. Second, the defendant possessed
a firearm in connection with his offense. See § 4C1.1(a) (7) (adjustment requires
that defendant "did not possess . . . a firearm . . . in connection with the
offense"); see also filing 75 at 25, 45; filing 46 at 3; filing 50 at 16-17) (defendant
possessed an American Tactical M1911 Military .45 caliber semi-automatic
pistol in connection with offense).
The defendant argues that simply being convicted of "carrying a firearm
during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime" in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1)(A) isn't enough to demonstrate possession of a firearm "in connection
with the offense" within the meaning of § 4C1.1(a)(7). Filing 120 at 2. There's
no merit to that argument. See United States v. Cotto, No. 18-CR-2216, 2025
WL 1505323, at *3 (D.N.M. May 27, 2025); United States v. Sanchez, No. 01-
CR-170, 2024 WL 3328608, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 8, 2024); United States v.
4:22-cr-03098-JMG-CRZ Doc # 123 Filed: 01/20/26 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>

- 2 -
Navarro-Melendez, No. 18-CR-91, 2024 WL 1722524, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 22),
aff'd, No. 24-6627, 2024 WL 4579416 (4th Cir. Oct. 25, 2024); United States v.
Erickson, No. 18-CR-30148, 2024 WL 578587, at *2 (D.S.D. Feb. 13, 2024).
The defendant also invites the Court to disagree with § 4C1.1(a)(7) on
policy grounds, and reduce his sentence despite his possession of a firearm.
Filing 120 at 3. The Court cannot do so. The Court at sentencing has the
discretionary authority to vary from a correctly calculated Guidelines range
based upon the Court's policy disagreement with a particular guideline. United
States v. VandeBrake, 679 F.3d 1030, 1042-43 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007)). But the Court can only reduce
a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) as authorized by the Guidelines, and cannot
disagree with the Guidelines in that context. See United States v. Clark, 563
F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2009); accord United States v. Maxwell, 590 F.3d 585,
588 (8th Cir. 2010). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion to reduce sentence
(filing 120) is denied.
Dated this 20th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
4:22-cr-03098-JMG-CRZ Doc # 123 Filed: 01/20/26 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>