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-21-76-11-SLP
)
JOSE LUIS TORRES NARANJO, )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
Before the Court is Defendant’s pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence [Doc. No. 723].
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. 726] 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. 724].
I. Background
On August 31, 2022, Defendant pled guilty to drug conspiracy in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846. Doc. Nos. 405-407. On May 9, 2023, the United States Probation Office
filed its Final Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). Doc. No. 542. The PSR calculated
a base offense level of 38, plus (1) a two-point enhancement because the methamphetamine
involved in the offense was unlawfully imported from Mexico; and (2) a two-point
enhancement because Defendant maintained a premises that was used solely for the
purpose of converting liquid methamphetamine to crystallized methamphetamine. PSR at
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 744 Filed 11/13/24 Page 1 of 5

2
¶¶ 34-36. This resulted in an adjusted offense level of 42. Id., ¶ 40. After applying a three-
level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the PSR calculated a total offense level of
39. Id., ¶¶42-44.
The PSR calculated a total criminal history score of zero for Defendant, placing him
in a criminal history category of I. Id., ¶ 48. Combining Defendant’s total offense level of
39 and criminal history category of I, the PSR recommended a guideline range of 262 to
327 months’ imprisonment. Id., ¶ 73.
On August 17, 2023, the Court adopted the PSR without change, varied downward,
and sentenced Defendant to 204 months’ imprisonment. Doc. Nos. 627, 629 at 2, 630 at
1.
On July 15, 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
U.S. 817, 826 (2010). “At step one, § 3582(c)(2) requires the court to follow the
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 744 Filed 11/13/24 Page 2 of 5

3
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 his 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;
(8) the instant offense of conviction is not covered by § 2H1.1 (Offenses
Involving Individual Rights);
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 744 Filed 11/13/24 Page 3 of 5

4
III. Analysis
Defendant is a zero-point offender entitled to a decrease in two offense levels. And
Defendant meets all ten eligibility criteria. Application of Amendment 821 would reduce
Defendant’s total offense level from 39 to 37 resulting in a reduced guideline range of 210-
262 months.
However, the Court already considered the effect of Amendment 821 when
sentencing Defendant. See Doc. No. 630 at 3 (“This sentence takes into consideration the
two-level reduction based on the proposed guideline amendment to USSG §4C1.1 for
certain zero criminal history point offenders.”). And the Court sentenced Defendant to 204
months’ imprisonment, which is below the amended guideline range. The Court is not
authorized to further reduce Defendant’s sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A); see
also Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827. 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.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence [Doc.
No. 723] is DISMISSED.
(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 744 Filed 11/13/24 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of November, 2024.
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 744 Filed 11/13/24 Page 5 of 5