ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 292

SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.

Pursuant to the Court's judgment of August 24, 2016, defendant Angel Guzman Gonzalez is serving a term of 96 months after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846. Dkt. No. 275. On February 1, 2017, defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence based on November, 2014 amendments to the sentencing guidelines, which reduced the base offense level for certain drug offenses. Dkt. No. 277. On March 27, 2017, the probation office submitted a sentence reduction investigation report stating that defendant was not eligible for a reduction in his sentence, because "the Court already considered the drug guideline reduction at the time of sentencing[.]" Dkt. No. 278. The government agreed. Dkt. No. 279. The Court denied defendant's motion to reduce his sentence, "since the reduced guidelines were already taken into account at the time of sentencing[.]" Dkt. No. 280. Defendant subsequently filed another motion to reduce his sentence. Dkt. No. 281. This Court denied that motion without guidance from probation because defendant's motion raised no new issues of law or fact. Dkt. No. 282.

Defendant submitted a third motion to reduce his sentence. Dkt. No. 292. The reduction request remains substantively identical to Dkt. No. 277 and Dkt. No. 281. While this Court commends defendant's behavior in prison, Mr. Guzman Gonzalez is not entitled to a reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Guidelines Amendment that defendant relies upon was taken into account in his August 2016 sentencing. For the same reasons stated in the Court's April 4, 2017 and May 25, 2017 Orders denying defendant's motion to reduce his sentence, Dkt. No. 280 and Dkt. No. 282, the Court hereby DENIES defendant's third motion to reduce his sentence.

This order resolves Dkt. No. 292.

IT IS SO ORDERED.