United States v. Rodriguez
This text of United States v. Rodriguez (United States v. Rodriguez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES Criminal Action No. 23-302-5 (JDB) v. CILA MELGAR RODRIGUEZ
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
The Court sentenced Melgar Rodriguez on May 29, 2025, to 120 months in prison followed
by 60 months of supervised release for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine
and fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A)(ii). See Judgment, Dkt.
175. He now moves pro se for a reduction in his sentence. See Mot., Dkt. 181. In support, he
relies on U.S.S.G. amendment 833, which revises section 2D1.1 of the sentencing guidelines.
Melgar Rodriguez’s motion is without merit. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) provides for possible
sentence reductions where a guideline range was lowered after sentencing, and indeed section
2D1.1 was amended in November 2025, six months after sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1
historical note. However, the sentence imposed of 120 months in prison is already the mandatory
minimum by statute, so changes to the guidelines range would not make him eligible for a lower
sentence. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Even had he been sentenced above the statutory
minimum, he would not be entitled to a sentence reduction. Amendment 833 revised certain
mitigating role provisions in section 2D1.1, but at sentencing Melgar Rodriguez received an
aggravating role adjustment under section 3B1.1(c) rather than a mitigating role adjustment under
section 3B1.2. Amendment 833 also changed the mens rea for a fentanyl-related adjustment that
is irrelevant here because it was not applied at his sentencing.
1 The Court therefore finds that Melgar Rodriguez is ineligible for a sentence reduction under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, the Court DENIES [181] defendant’s motion.
/s/ JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge Date: December 30, 2025
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Rodriguez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rodriguez-dcd-2025.