United States v. Najar-Celis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: August 21, 2024
• Docket: 24-4031
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-4031 Document: 010111098086 Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 21, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-4031 (D.C. No. 2:21-CR-00402-JNP-1) CRISTIAN NAJAR-CELIS, (D. Utah)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before PHILLIPS, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Defendant Cristian Najar-Celis appeals the district court’s denial of his motion

to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Exercising jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s decision.

I

In September 2021, Mr. Najar-Celis was stopped by a Utah Highway Patrol

(UHP) officer for a traffic violation. The UHP officer searched the vehicle and

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 24-4031 Document: 010111098086 Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Page: 2

found, among other things, approximately 204 grams of heroin. Law enforcement

officers then searched Mr. Najar-Celis’s home and discovered an additional 680

grams of heroin.

A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Najar-Celis on one count of possession of

heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and punishable

under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Mr. Najar-Celis entered into a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea

agreement, pursuant to which Mr. Najar-Celis agreed to plead guilty to a one-count

information charging him with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and punishable under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).

The district court sentenced Mr. Najar-Celis, in accordance with the terms of the plea

agreement, to a below-guideline term of imprisonment of 41 months, to be followed

by a 3-year term of supervised release.1

Nearly a year and a half later, in December 2023, Mr. Najar-Celis filed a

pro se motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Mr. Najar-Celis argued that he was entitled to a sentence reduction under

Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Part B of

Amendment 821, which became effective on November 1, 2023, and applies

retroactively, amended Chapter Four of the Sentencing Guidelines to create

Guideline § 4C1.1. That section authorizes a reduction of two offense levels for

1 The district court calculated a total offense level of 24, a criminal history category of I, and a resulting guideline imprisonment range of 51 to 63 months. 2 Appellate Case: 24-4031 Document: 010111098086 Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Page: 3

defendants with zero criminal history points and who satisfy certain other criteria.

See U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. The district court summarily denied Mr. Najar-Celis’s motion.

Mr. Najar-Celis now appeals.

II

Section 3582(c)(2) of Title 18 allows a court to reduce a sentence for 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.”

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We review a district court’s order denying a § 3582(c)(2)

motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031

(10th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an incorrect

conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” Id. (quoting United States

v. Battle, 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013)).

As previously noted, Amendment 821 applies to criminal defendants who have

zero criminal history points and who meet certain other criteria. As the district court

explained, Mr. Najar-Celis is not eligible for a two-level reduction in his offense

level under Amendment 821 for at least two reasons that are apparent from the record

in this case: (1) he received one criminal history point for a 2018 conviction for

illegal reentry; and (2) he possessed a firearm in connection with the offense of

conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(1), (a)(7). We agree with the district court’s

conclusion that Mr. Najar-Celis is ineligible for the two-level reduction he seeks. We

therefore conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Mr. Najar-Celis’s motion.

3 Appellate Case: 24-4031 Document: 010111098086 Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Page: 4

III

We affirm the decision of the district court.

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge