USA v. Grijalva-Soto et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff/Respondent, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Criminal Case No. CR-18-86-RAW
)
KEVIN RUANY GRIJALVA-SOTO, 	)
)
Defendant/Movant. 	)
ORDER
Now before the court is a handwritten “motion for clarity on amendments” filed by pro se
Defendant Kevin Ruany Grijalva-Soto (“Defendant”). 	[Doc. 107]. 	The Government filed a
response in opposition to Defendant’s motion. [Doc. 111]. Defendant did not file a reply.
Defendant is serving his sentence at FCI McDowell, a Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) facility
in West Virginia.1 He is 36 years old and his projected release date is October 30, 2026. Defendant
requests the court to provide “clarity on the recently passed new amendment” and determine
whether Defendant is entitled to a sentence reduction or immediate release. [Doc. 107 at 1]. He
states that “federal officials have advised federal inmates to contact their sentencing courts to
inquire about the new law amendments.” Id. (cleaned up). He also claims that, “[a]ccording to
federal officials[,] there was the elimination of the categorical approach 4B1.2 for determining
whether convictions qualify defendants for enhanced penalties, which avoids technical statutory
interpretation battles,” and that the court “must focus on what the defendant [had actually] done.”
Id. at 2. 	Defendant notes that he previously received a reduction in sentence in 2024.2 	Id.
Defendant requests appointment of counsel. Id.
In response, the Government contends that “Defendant has specified no guideline change
relating to his . . . drug-based sentence, and he likewise has no knowledge of a change impacting
his sentence which has been made retroactive.” [Doc. 111 at 7]. The Government asserts that the
1 	See BOP inmate locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited February 5, 2026).
2 	See Order entered on February 9, 2024. [Doc. 105].
6:18-cr-00086-RAW Document 112 Filed in ED/OK on 02/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
“only specific sentencing guideline or factor he mentions in his motion refers to the categorical
approach which has no bearing on his sentence.” Id. at 8. Moreover, the Government claims it
“is unaware of any other change or amendment which would even arguably qualify as a ground
for reducing Defendant’s sentence.” 	Id. 	The motion, according to the Government, should be
denied. Id.
Because Defendant is requesting the court to provide clarity on the “recently passed new
amendment” and to determine whether he is entitled to a reduction in sentence, Defendant’s motion
is construed as a motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).3 It is possible that
Defendant is seeking retroactive application of Amendment 833 to the sentencing guidelines. The
amendment became effective on November 1, 2025.4 Still, Amendment 833 is not retroactive and
Defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d); see also, e.g., United
States v. Nunez, Case No. 2:25-cr-00394-MIS, 2026 WL 36101, at *1 (D.N.M. Jan. 6, 2026);
United States v. Leones, Case No. 8:20-cr-138-CEH-AAS, 2025 WL 3537608, at *2 (M.D. Fla.
Dec. 10, 2025).
Lastly, insofar as Defendant is alleging “the elimination of the categorical approach 4B1.2
for determining whether convictions qualify defendants for enhanced penalties categorical
approach,” such argument is inapplicable here. 	U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 is the guideline provision that
defines various terms used in the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Defendant was not
sentenced as a career offender.
The court is unaware of any change or amendment which would qualify as a ground for
reducing Defendant’s sentence at this time. 	Defendant’s request for appointment of counsel is
3 	The statute provides that “[t]he court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has
been imposed except that . . . in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant . . . the court may
reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the
extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
4 	See https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/amendment/833 (last visited February 5, 2026).
6:18-cr-00086-RAW Document 112 Filed in ED/OK on 02/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
DENIED.5 Defendant’s motion for clarity on amendments [Doc. 107], construed as a motion for
sentence reduction, is DENIED.
It is so ordered this 5th day of February, 2026.
__________________________________________
THE HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
5 	There is no constitutional right to assistance of counsel in pursuing a § 3582 motion. See
United States v. Olden, 296 Fed.Appx. 671, 674 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished); see also
Coronado v. Ward, 517 F.3d 1212, 1218 (10th Cir. 2008) (“There is no constitutional right to
counsel beyond the direct appeal of a criminal conviction . . . .”).
6:18-cr-00086-RAW Document 112 Filed in ED/OK on 02/05/26 Page 3 of 3