UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

CHRISTHIAN EDUARDO BAILON DELGADO,

Movant,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-3034-WFJ-CPT Crim. Case No. 8:19-cr-234-WFJ-CPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. /

ORDER

Christhian Eduardo Bailon Delgado is a federal prisoner serving a 168-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (Crim. Doc. 72). He initiated this action by filing a pro se motion to vacate sentence under

. (Civ. Doc. 1). Mr. Delgado’s sole claim for relief is that he is entitled to resentencing under a lower guidelines range because of recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. (Id. at 1). After careful review, the Court concludes that the § 2255 motion must be DENIED without prejudice. See Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases (“If it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party.”). Mr. Delgado seeks relief under guideline amendments that became effective on November 1, 2025. (Civ. Doc. 1 at 1). As relevant here, the United States Sentencing

Commission “amended [USSG] § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B)’s special instructions [to] expand the circumstances under which [a mitigating-role adjustment] is warranted in drug offenses.” United States v. Maciel,

, 936 (S.D. Cal. 2025). The revised guidelines state, among other things, that a mitigating-role adjustment “is generally warranted if the defendant’s primary function in the offense was performing a low-level trafficking function.” USSG § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B). In his motion, Mr. Delgado seeks “retroactive”

application of these amendments to his guideline range. (Civ. Doc. 1 at 1). Mr. Delgado cannot pursue his guideline-based claim under § 2255. The amendments on which he relies have yet to be made retroactive.1 See United States v. Kuot, No. 4:20-cr-3130,

, at *1 & n.1 (D. Neb. Nov. 3, 2025) (noting that recent guideline amendments regarding “mitigating role adjustments in drug trafficking

cases” have not “been applied retroactively yet”); see also USSG § 1B1.10. Section 2255 “cannot be used to make retroactive a guideline amendment that is not retroactive.” United States v. Gonzalez, No. 5:12-cr-9-RH-HTC,

, at *1 (N.D. Fla. June 29, 2019); see also United States v. Pineda, No. 8:16-cv-2211-SDM-AAS,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2016) (denying relief under § 2255 because guideline amendment

1 In July 2025, the Sentencing Commission held a public hearing on “whether to designate as retroactive certain 2025 guideline amendments,” including the mitigating-role amendment at issue here. United States Sentencing Commission, Public Hearing on Retroactivity, https://www.ussc.gov/policymaking/meetings- hearings/public-hearing-july-16-2025 (last visited November 6, 2025). did not “appl[y] retroactively on collateral review’). Therefore, Mr. Delgado is not entitled to relief under § 2255. If the Sentencing Commission elects to give retroactive effect to the relevant guideline amendments, Mr. Delgado may at that point file a motion under

(c) in his criminal case. See Pate v. United States, No. 1:18-cr-8,

, at *4 (S.D. Ga. July 1, 2024) (noting that “the proper way to request [a sentence] reduction [based on a retroactive guideline amendment] is not § 2255, but instead by motion .. . under

(c)(2) for modification of [the] sentence”’); Jimenez v. United States, No. 17-cv-768-JLL,

, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 10, 2017) (“[A] motion for resentencing based on amendments to the Guidelines is not appropriately brought in a § 2255 motion [but instead should be brought by filing] a motion under

(c)(2) in [the petitioner’s] criminal case.’’). Accordingly, Mr. Delgado’s motion to vacate under § 2255, (Civ. Doc. 1), is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment against Mr. Delgado, to CLOSE this case, and to enter a copy of this order in the criminal case. Because Mr. Delgado fails to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis are DENIED.

(c)(2). DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 6, 2025. mee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-