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-21-76-8-SLP
)
DANIEL MORALES LARA, )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
The United States Probation Office previously filed a Preliminary Report [Doc. No.
682] advising the Court that Defendant is eligible for 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. 728] and concedes
Defendant’s eligibility, but opposes any reduction of Defendant’s sentence. Defendant,
represented by counsel, has filed a Reply [Doc. No. 743] and seeks a reduction of his
sentence to a 168-month term of imprisonment.
I. Background
Defendant was sentenced on March 29, 2023. See Judgment [Doc. No. 472]. At
sentencing, the Court adopted the final presentence investigation report PSR [Doc. No.
448] without change. Defendant’s advisory guideline sentencing range was 210 to 262
months. Id., ¶ 67; see also Doc. No. 473 at 1. The Court varied downward and sentenced
Defendant to 180 months’ imprisonment, consisting of 180 months as to Count 1 (Drug
Conspiracy) and 132 months as to Count 34 (Distribution of Methamphetamine), with the
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 752 Filed 04/25/25 Page 1 of 4

2
sentences to be served concurrently. See Doc. Nos. 471 and 472 at 2. The Court varied
downward based on Defendant’s “[l]imited duration of involvement” in the drug
conspiracy charged, his “[b]ackground history and past trauma experienced in formative
years,” and his “[l]ack of known criminal history.” Doc. No. 473 at 3.
Consistent with the Preliminary Report, the parties agree that Defendant is eligible
for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 821.1
Defendant’s advisory guideline sentencing range of imprisonment is now 168 to 210
months, rather than 210 to 262 months. Defendant argues that a further reduction of his
sentence to 168 months “reflects all circumstances and concerns previously considered by
th[e] Court.” Reply at 3. The Government opposes any further sentence reduction.
II. Discussion
A two-step inquiry governs whether a defendant’s sentence may be reduced. United
States v. Green, 886 F.3d 1300, 1306 (10th Cir. 2018). First, the Court must consider
whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. Id. Second, the Court must
consider whether a sentence reduction is warranted in accordance with the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. As set forth, the parties agree that Defendant is eligible for a
sentence reduction and the Court’s independent review of the record confirms the same.
Accordingly, the Court focuses on the second step of the inquiry, which involves a matter
of the Court’s discretion. Id.; see also United States v. McDonald, No. 24-7038, 2025 WL
1140251 at *2 (10th Cir. April 15, 2025) (“[T]he decision whether or not to reduce a
1 Defendant’s eligibility is based on Amendment 821 (Part B) which applies to certain defendants
with zero criminal history points and reduces the guideline range by two offense levels.
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 752 Filed 04/25/25 Page 2 of 4

3
sentence based on the particular facts of a case lies within the district court’s discretion”
and “review of the reasonableness of a district court’s chosen sentence is highly
deferential[.]”).
Defendant relies on the following § 3553(a) factors to support a further reduction:
(1) the goals of sentencing as embodied in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); (2) public safety; and (3)
post-sentencing conduct. See Reply at 4. Defendant argues that the goals of sentencing
are met as “[a] guideline sentence holding Mr. Lara responsible for all drug amounts and
SOC guideline enhancements does not fail to take into account public safety considerations
and deterrence.” Id. Defendant places emphasis on the fact that he is the subject of an ICE
detainer, is the subject of a final order of deportation, and will be deported to Mexico after
his incarceration is complete. Id. And, Defendant focuses on his “excellent” post-
sentencing conduct. Finally, Defendant contends that he will be serving more time than
others subject to the same sentence of incarceration for the same offense due to the issuance
of a final order of deportation. Id. at 5.
Although the Court finds Defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to
Amendment 821, upon consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, the Court declines to further
reduce Defendant’s sentence. Defendant’s current sentence is already at the lower end of
the amended guideline range. The Court has also considered the nature and circumstances
of the offense -- particularly that Defendant was entrusted with a large amount of
methamphetamine and drug proceeds from a significant, Mexico-based drug-trafficking
organization (DTO) and it appears his primary reason for coming to the United States was
his involvement with the DTO. Notwithstanding Defendant’s post-sentencing conduct,
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 752 Filed 04/25/25 Page 3 of 4

4
and the consequences attendant to his final order of deportation, the Court finds a further
sentence reduction would neither benefit public safety nor be consistent with the goals of
federal sentencing.2 Furthermore, the Court finds that the 180-month sentence is supported
by several of the other § 3553(a) factors to include the seriousness of the offense, adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct, respect for the law, just punishment for the offense, and to
protect the public from further criminal conduct. The 180-month sentence is sufficient, but
not greater than necessary to meet the objectives set forth in § 3553(a).
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, the Court denies any reduction of Defendant’s sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of April, 2025.
2 As Defendant acknowledges, at sentencing the Court considered Defendant’s apparent lack of a
criminal history as a basis for a downward variance. See Reply at 3 (citing Sentencing Tr. [Doc.
No. 568] at 36). To this end, the Court notes that the two-level decrease under Amendment 821
for zero-point offenders now recognizes a defendant’s lack of criminal history. Therefore, if the
Court were sentencing Defendant today, the Court would not have necessarily made a further
downward variance based on his lack of criminal history.
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 752 Filed 04/25/25 Page 4 of 4