United States of America v. Alzuarte-Rodriguez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-18-47-SLP
)
CESAR ALZUARTE-RODRIGUEZ, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
O R D E R
Before the Court is Defendant’s pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence [Doc. No. 1620].
Defendant seeks a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and
Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.).1 The Government
has filed a Response [Doc. No. 1625] and opposes the requested relief. 	The Court has
further reviewed the Probation Office’s Preliminary Report for Consideration of Sentence
Reduction Based on Amendment 821 [Doc. No. 1621]. 	For the reasons that follow,
Defendant’s Motions to Reduce Sentence are DISMISSED.
I. 	Background
On March 4, 2019, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. See Doc. Nos. 763, 807–810. On
March 24, 2020, the United States Probation Office filed its Final Presentence Investigation
Report (PSR). Doc. No. 1378. The PSR calculated a base offense level of 38, and included
1 Defendant filed a second Motion [Doc. No. 1641] seeking substantively identical relief, and the
Government filed a Response [Doc. No. 1644] advancing substantively identical objections.
This Order therefore applies with equal force to both motions.
Case 5:18-cr-00047-SLP Document 1665 Filed 10/25/24 Page 1 of 5

2
(1) a two-point enhancement for possessing firearms in connection with the drugs, (2) a
two-point enhancement because the methamphetamine was unlawfully imported, (3) a
two-point enhancement because Defendant maintained several premises for the purpose of
storing and distributing methamphetamine, and (4) a four-point enhancement based on
Defendant’s role as an organizer or leader of the drug trafficking enterprise. 	Id. ¶¶ 102–
105, 107. This resulted in an adjusted offense level of 48. Id. ¶ 109. Defendant received
a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Id. ¶¶ 111–112. The resulting total
offense level was 43. Id. ¶ 113.
The PSR calculated a total criminal history score of one. Id. ¶ 116. Defendant did
not receive any status points for committing the offense while under a criminal justice
sentence. Defendant’s criminal history score placed him in a criminal history category of
I. Id. ¶ 117. Combining Defendant’s total offense level of 43 and criminal history category
of I, the PSR recommended a sentence of 480 months’ imprisonment, which was the
statutorily authorized maximum sentence. Id. ¶ 155.
On August 26, 2020, the Court adopted the PSR without change and sentenced
Defendant to 420 months’ imprisonment. Doc. No. 1430, 1431.
On April 22, 2024, Defendant filed the pending Motion. 	He seeks a reduction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 821. 	On August 1, 2024,
Defendant filed a second Motion seeking substantively identical relief.
II. 	Governing Standard
“A district court does not have inherent authority to modify a previously imposed
sentence; it may do so only pursuant to statutory authorization.” United States v. Mendoza,
Case 5:18-cr-00047-SLP Document 1665 Filed 10/25/24 Page 2 of 5

3
118 F.3d 707, 709 (10th Cir. 1997). One source of statutory authorization is section 3582
which allows for a possible reduction for 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Section 3582(c)(2) “establishes a two-step inquiry.” 	Dillon v. United States, 560
U.S. 817, 826 (2010). “At step one, § 3582(c)(2) requires the court to follow the
Commission’s instructions in [U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.10 to determine the prisoner’s eligibility
for a sentence modification and the extent of the reduction authorized.” Id. at 827. “At step
two of the inquiry, § 3582(c)(2) instructs a court to consider any applicable § 3553(a)
factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by reference to
the policies relevant at step one is warranted in whole or in part under the particular
circumstances of the case.” Id.
Here, Defendant seeks a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 to the
U.S.S.G. which took effect on November 1, 2023, and applies retroactively. 	Part A of
Amendment 821 limits the criminal history impact of “status points,” and Subpart 1 of Part
B of Amendment 821 creates a new guideline, § 4C1.1, that provides for a decrease of two
offense levels for “Zero-Point Offenders.” 	See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual app. C
Supp., amend. 821 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2023). With respect to the guideline for zero-
point offenders, a defendant is eligible for a two-level reduction in the offense level if he
or she meets all ten of the listed criteria.2
2 Those ten criteria are:
Case 5:18-cr-00047-SLP Document 1665 Filed 10/25/24 Page 3 of 5

4
III. 	Analysis
As set forth, Defendant had a total of one criminal history point. PSR ¶ 116. And
he did not receive any status points for committing the offense while under a criminal
justice sentence. Thus, a sentence reduction is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
because Defendant is not eligible under either Part A or Part B of Amendment 821.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, the Court lacks jurisdiction to reduce Defendant’s
sentence. See United States v. White, 765 F.3d 1240, 1242 (10th Cir. 2014) (“[D]ismissal
for lack of jurisdiction rather than denial on the merits is the appropriate disposition of
[defendant’s] § 3582(c)(2) motion.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motions to Reduce Sentence
(1) the defendant did not receive any criminal history points from Chapter Four,
Part A;
(2) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under § 3A1.4 (Terrorism);
(3) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence in connection
with the offense;
(4) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury;
(5) the instant offense of conviction is not a sex offense;
(6) the defendant did not personally cause substantial financial hardship;
(7) the defendant did not possess, receive, purchase, transport, transfer, sell, or
otherwise dispose of a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another
participant to do so) in connection with the offense;
(8) the instant offense of conviction is not covered by § 2H1.1 (Offenses
Involving Individual Rights);
(9) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under § 3A1.1 (Hate Crime
Motivation or Vulnerable Victim) or § 3A1.5 (Serious Human Rights Offense);
and
(10) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating
Role) and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in 21
U.S.C. § 848 . . . .
U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a).
Case 5:18-cr-00047-SLP Document 1665 Filed 10/25/24 Page 4 of 5

5
[Docs. No. 1620, 1641] are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25 th day of October, 2024.
Case 5:18-cr-00047-SLP Document 1665 Filed 10/25/24 Page 5 of 5