DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
ADALBERTO VASQUEZ LIRIANO, 
Defendant. 
 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
 Criminal No. 2012-28 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Ronald S. Sharpe, USA 
Christian Fisanick, AUSA 
Office of the United States Attorney 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.  
 
For the United States of America, 
 
Omodare Jupiter, FPD 
Gabriel J. Villegas, AFPD 
Office of the Federal Public Defender  
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Adalberto Vasquez Liriano. 
 
 
ORDER 
GÓMEZ, J. 
 
Before the Court are the motions of Adalberto Vasquez 
Liriano (“Liriano”) for a reduction in his sentence pursuant to 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 
782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 
 
On February 27, 2013, Liriano pled guilty to one count of 
possession with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of 
cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). At sentencing, 
Liriano’s criminal history level was 1. Consistent with his 
Case: 3:12-cr-00028-CVG-RM   Document #: 63   Filed: 12/01/16   Page 1 of 3
United States v. Liriano 
Criminal No. 12-28 
Order 
Page 2 
 
presentence investigation report, Liriano’s offense level was 
determined to be 29. The relevant sentencing guidelines 
recommended a sentencing range of 87 to 108 months imprisonment. 
However, Liriano was subject to a 120 month statutory mandatory 
minimum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II). Liriano received 
a sentence of 120 months imprisonment.  
 
Since Liriano’s sentencing, there has been an amendment to 
the sentencing guidelines. Amendment 782 reduced the base 
offense level by 2 for many drug offenses. 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3582(c)(2) states that:  
[I]n 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 or the Director of the 
Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, 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. 
 
 
Liriano now moves for a reduction to his offense level in 
accord with the amended sentencing guidelines. The Government 
opposes the motion because any reduction in Liriano’s sentence 
would reduce his sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum.   
A reduction [in sentence] is not authorized under 
§ 3582(c)(2) if the change to the Sentencing 
Guidelines “does not have the effect of lowering 
Case: 3:12-cr-00028-CVG-RM   Document #: 63   Filed: 12/01/16   Page 2 of 3
United States v. Liriano 
Criminal No. 12-28 
Order 
Page 3 
 
the defendant's applicable guideline range because 
of the operation of another guideline or statutory 
provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum 
term of imprisonment).” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 
Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) & cmt. n. 
1(A); see *82 United States v. Ortiz–Vega, 744 
F.3d 869, 873 (3d Cir.2014) (“[I]f a defendant is 
subjected to a mandatory minimum, he or she would 
not be given a sentence ‘based on a sentencing 
range that has subsequently been lowered.’”) 
 
United States v. Jones, 605 F. App'x 81, 81-82 (3d Cir. 2015). 
Accordingly, because any reduction in Liriano’s sentence would 
reduce his sentence below the 120 month statutory mandatory 
minimum, Liriano’s motion is denied. 
 
The premises considered, it is hereby  
 
ORDERED that Liriano’s motions for Reduction of Sentence 
are DENIED. 
 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
District Judge 
Case: 3:12-cr-00028-CVG-RM   Document #: 63   Filed: 12/01/16   Page 3 of 3