USA v. Arroyo et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-22-00239-JD-003
)
DANIEL OCHOA, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Daniel Ochoa’s Motion for Reduction of Sentence,
Pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG § 1B1.10 (“Motion”). [Doc. No.
392]. The Motion requests a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on
the retroactive application of Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines. The United States responded in opposition asserting that Mr. Ochoa “is
neither eligible for a reduction in sentence as a zero-point offender or a status-point
offender.” [Doc. No. 394 at 1]. The United States Probation Office (“USPO”) filed a
Preliminary Report for Consideration of Sentence Reduction Based on Amendment 821
[Doc. No. 395], likewise asserting that Mr. Ochoa is ineligible for sentencing relief. For
the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses the Motion for lack of jurisdiction because
Mr. Ochoa is not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2).
I. 	BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2023, Mr. Ochoa entered a plea of guilty to a one-count Superseding
Information charging him with drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. [Doc.
Case 5:22-cr-00239-JD Document 398 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Nos. 253, 255–260]. On November 15, 2023, the USPO filed the Final Presentence
Investigation Report (“PSR”). [Doc. No. 294]. The PSR calculated a base offense level of
34. PSR ¶ 25. The PSR applied a two-level enhancement because Mr. Ochoa obstructed
justice, resulting in an adjusted offense level of 36. Id. ¶¶ 29, 30. After applying the two-
level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the PSR calculated a total offense level
of 34. Id. ¶¶ 32–33. The PSR calculated a total criminal history score of four for Mr.
Ochoa, placing him in a criminal history category of III. Id. ¶ 41. Mr. Ochoa did not
receive any “status points” for committing the offense while under a criminal justice
sentence. Based on a total offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of III, Mr.
Ochoa’s advisory guideline range for imprisonment was 188 months to 235 months. Id.
¶ 64.
Mr. Ochoa submitted various objections to the PSR, including challenges to the
calculation of his criminal history score, the application of the obstruction-of-justice
enhancement, and the failure to apply a mitigating role adjustment for minimal
participation. See id. at Addendum. The Court overruled Mr. Ochoa’s objections and
adopted the PSR without change. [Doc. No. 332 at 1]. The Court sentenced Mr. Ochoa to
a term of imprisonment of 218 months. Judgment at 2 [Doc. No. 331 at 2]. Mr. Ochoa
now asks the Court to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 821 to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines. Motion at 1.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Congress has authorized courts to modify prison sentences only under limited
circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); United States v. Mendoza, 118 F.3d 707, 709
Case 5:22-cr-00239-JD Document 398 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 5

3
(10th Cir. 1997) (explaining that district courts lack inherent authority to modify a
previously imposed sentence absent statutory authorization); United States v. Blackwell,
81 F.3d 945, 947 (10th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that a “district court is authorized to
modify [the defendant’s] sentence only in specified instances where Congress has
expressly granted the court jurisdiction to do so”).
One basis of authority is 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which allows for a possible
sentence 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). In such a case, the Court “may” reduce a
sentence if doing so would be consistent with the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
See id.
“Section 3582(c)(2) prescribes a two-step process.” United States v. Battle, 706
F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013). At step one, the district court must follow the
Sentencing Commission’s “‘instructions in [USSG] § 1B1.10 to determine the prisoner’s
eligibility for a sentence modification and the extent of the reduction authorized.’” United
States v. Piper, 839 F.3d 1261, 1266 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Dillon v. United States,
560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010)); see United States v. White, 765 F.3d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir.
2014) (explaining that the first step, “a matter of law, is whether a sentence reduction is
even authorized”). At step two, the district court considers whether such reduction “is
warranted in whole or in part” based on the applicable § 3553(a) factors and policy
statements. Piper, 839 F.3d at 1266; see White, 765 F.3d at 1245 (explaining that the
Case 5:22-cr-00239-JD Document 398 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 5

4
second step, “a matter of discretion, is whether an authorized reduction is in fact
warranted”). Additionally, the district court “‘may consider’ the defendant’s post-
sentencing conduct.” United States v. Osborn, 679 F.3d 1193, 1195 (10th Cir. 2012)
(quoting USSG § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B)(iii)). Section 3582(c)(2), however, does not
provide a new sentencing proceeding. See Piper, 839 F.3d at 1266 (explaining that
§ 3582(c)(2)’s process “authorize[s] only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final
sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding” (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted)).
Here, Mr. Ochoa seeks a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 to the
United States Sentencing Guidelines, which took effect on November 1, 2023, and
applies retroactively. Part A of Amendment 821 limits the criminal history impact of
“status points,” and Part B creates a new guideline, § 4C1.1, that provides for a decrease
of two offense levels for “Zero-Point Offenders.” See USSG Suppl. to App. C, Amend.
821 (Part B) (Zero-Point Offenders). 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 10 of the listed criteria. See USSG § 4C1.1(a).
As set forth above, Mr. Ochoa had four criminal history points and did not receive
any status points for committing the offense while under a criminal justice sentence.
Thus, a sentence reduction is not authorized under either Part A or Part B of Amendment
821 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).1
1 Mr. Ochoa was sentenced after November 1, 2023, the effective date of
Amendment 821.
Case 5:22-cr-00239-JD Document 398 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Accordingly, because no reduction is authorized, the Court lacks jurisdiction under
§ 3582(c)(2) to modify Mr. Ochoa’s sentence and dismisses the Motion. See White, 765
F.3d at 1250 (explaining that where a defendant is “ineligible to receive a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c)(2), . . . dismissal for lack of jurisdiction rather than denial on
the merits is the appropriate disposition”); see also United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 755 F.
App’x 811, 813 (10th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (affirming the district court’s dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction where Amendment 782 did not affect the defendant’s guideline
range).
III. 	CONCLUSION
Defendant Daniel Ochoa’s Motion for Reduction of Sentence, Pursuant to Title 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG § 1B1.10 [Doc. No. 392] is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of January 2026.
Case 5:22-cr-00239-JD Document 398 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 5