Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order, Motion for Reduction of Sentence — United States v. Ameet Goyal, 19-CR-844 (CS) (Dkt. 165, S.D.N.Y.)

Order, Motion for Reduction of Sentence — United States v. Ameet Goyal, 19-CR-844 (CS) (Dkt. 165, S.D.N.Y.)

Summary

Order, Document 165, filed 03/28/25, in Case 7:19-cr-00844-CS, 19-CR-844 (CS), addressing Defendant Ameet Goyal's motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (ECF No. 161). The Court states that U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 does not apply to Defendant because it applies only to defendants who meet eleven criteria, one of which is no adjustment for aggravating role under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, and Defendant stipulated to and received such an adjustment. It adds that Defendant's range was 151-188 months, and that the sentence of 96 months is already below the low end of the range that would result if the offense level were reduced to 32. The motion is denied.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Order, Motion for Reduction of Sentence — United States v. Ameet Goyal, 19-CR-844 (CS) (Dkt. 165, S.D.N.Y.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-s-d-n-y-no-7-19-cr-00844-dkt-165-s-d-n-y-f55cf5c539/, SHA-256 3c10acaf815746e89386577ae38aee012bb74a9968a5e79d2c161d1d5d382dc8.

Full text

         Case 7:19-cr-00844-CS              Document 165   Filed 03/28/25     Page 1 of 2




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                 -v.-                                        ORDER

AMEET GOYAL,                                                 19-CR-844 (CS)

                           Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------x

Seibel, J.

        Before the Court is Defendant Ameet Goyal’s motion for reduction of sentence pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (ECF No. 161.) Defendant was convicted of six fraud counts relating

to two separate schemes, and was sentenced principally to 96 months’ imprisonment. (ECF No.

108.)

        Defendant’s motion under § 3582(c)(2) relies on an amendment to the United States

Sentencing Guidelines that was made retroactive and that provides for a two-level reduction in

offense level for offenders wth zero criminal history points who meet certain conditions. But

that new Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, does not apply to Defendant. It applies only to

Defendants who meet eleven criteria, one of which is that he not have received an adjustment for

aggravating role under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1.1 But Defendant stipulated to and received such an

adjustment. (PSR ¶¶ 10(vii), 86; ECF No. 134 (“Sent. Tr.”) at 45-46.)




        1
          Although the Guideline is quite clear that an eligible defendant must meet all eleven
criteria, Defendant seems to have tried to obfuscate his ineligibility by combining the last two
criteria – that the defendant did not receive an aggravating role adjustment and was not engaged
in a continuing criminal enterprise – into one, claiming that he is eligible because he “did not
receive an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) while engaged in a continuing criminal
enterprise.” (ECF No. 161 at 2.) This apparent attempt to mislead is, unfortunately, of a piece
with Defendant’s history of false statements.
        Case 7:19-cr-00844-CS         Document 165         Filed 03/28/25      Page 2 of 2




       Even if Defendant met the criteria in U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, he would still be ineligible for a

reduction because, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) may

not result in a term less than the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. Defendant’s range

was 151-188 months, based on an offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of I. (PSR

¶ 140; Sent. Tr. at 46.) If the offense level were reduced to 32, Defendant’s range would be 121-

151 months. His sentence of 96 months is already below the low end of that range, so he could

not receive a reduction even if he were eligible under § 4C1.1. See United States v. Ross, No.

15-CR-95, 2024 WL 149130, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2024) (“[I]f a defendant was originally

sentenced to a term of imprisonment that falls below the low end of the amended Guidelines

range, that defendant is ineligible for a reduction under Section 3582(c)(2).”).

       Because Defendant is ineligible for a reduction, I need not consider the 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a) factors. See United States v. Prescod, No. 18-CR-162, 2024 WL 3758820, at *3

(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2024) (“The court need not consider the section 3553(a) factors to determine

whether a reduction is warranted as [Defendant] is ineligible for the relief sought.”)

       For the reasons stated above, the motion is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully

directed to terminate ECF No. 161 and to send a copy of this Order to Ameet Goyal, No. 87508-

054, USP Canaan, U.S. Penitentiary, Satellite Camp, P.O. Box 200, Waymart, PA 18472.

Dated: March 28, 2025
       White Plains, New York


                                              ____________________________
                                              CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J.




                                                 2

File and source

File
165.pdf
Size
58,870 bytes
SHA-256
3c10acaf815746e89386577ae38aee012bb74a9968a5e79d2c161d1d5d382dc8
Our copy
165.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top