United States of America v. Flores et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CR-21-76-10-SLP
)
JOSE ISRAEL CARILLO RAMIREZ, )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
Before the Court is Defendant’s pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence [Doc. No. 696].
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.). The Government
has filed a Response [Doc. No. 715] 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. 706].
I. Background
On August 31, 2022, Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Doc. No. 410-412. On
April 10, 2023, the United States Probation Office filed its Final Presentence Investigation
Report (PSR). Doc. No. 487. The PSR calculated a base offense level of 38, plus (1) a
two-point enhancement because the methamphetamine involved in the conspiracy was
imported from Mexico, (2) a two-point enhancement because Defendant maintained a
premise used solely for the purpose of converting liquid methamphetamine to crystallized
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 738 Filed 09/18/24 Page 1 of 4

2
methamphetamine, and (3) a three-point enhancement because Defendant was a manager
or supervisor of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise
extensive. PSR at ¶¶ 39-41, 43. This resulted in an adjusted offense level of 45. Id., ¶ 45.
After applying a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the PSR calculated
a total offense level of 42. Id., ¶¶ 47-49.
The PSR calculated a total criminal history score of zero for Defendant, placing him
in a criminal history category of I. Id., ¶¶ 52-53. Combining Defendant’s total offense
level of 42 and criminal history category of I, the PSR recommended a guideline range of
360 months to life imprisonment. Id., ¶ 73.
On June 29, 2023, the Court adopted the PSR without change, departed downward,
and sentenced Defendant to 192 months’ imprisonment. Doc. Nos. 589, 591, 592.
On May 3, 2024, Defendant filed the pending Motion. He seeks a reduction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 821 on grounds that he is a zero-
point offender.
II. 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,
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
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 738 Filed 09/18/24 Page 2 of 4

3
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.1
1 Those ten criteria are:
(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;
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 738 Filed 09/18/24 Page 3 of 4

4
III. Analysis
Because Defendant has zero criminal history points, he contends he is a zero-point
offender entitled to a decrease in two offense levels. But Defendant fails to meet all ten
eligibility criteria. Specifically, Defendant fails to meet U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(10). As set
forth, Defendant received an aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for
being an organizer or leader in criminal activity. See PSR, ¶ 43. Accordingly, 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.”).
IV. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction
[Doc. No. 696] is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of September, 2024.
(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 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 738 Filed 09/18/24 Page 4 of 4