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 “Request Motion of Reconsideration of
File-Resolution” [Doc. No. 750]. 	The Government has filed a Response in Opposition
[Doc. No. 751].
On November 13, 2024, the Court entered an Order dismissing Defendant’s
request for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821
to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See [Doc. No. 744]. The Court concluded it
lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief because Defendant was sentenced below
the amended guideline range. See id. at 4. On March 3, 2025, Defendant filed the instant
Motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal. The Government opposes the requested
relief, arguing Defendant’s Motion is untimely.
“[A] motion to reconsider an order granting or denying a sentence modification
under § 3582(c)(2) must be brought within the time granted to appeal that order.” United
States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238, 1243 (10th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Trejo,
No. CR 18-1243 RB, 2024 WL 5141462, at *2 (D.N.M. Dec. 11, 2024). Here, Defendant
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 753 Filed 04/28/25 Page 1 of 2

2
had 14 days to appeal the Court’s earlier Order. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). He filed
his Motion to Reconsider 110 days after the Court entered its Order, however, so his
Motion is untimely by 96 days. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28 th day of April, 2025.
1 Additionally, nothing in the Motion casts doubt on the Court’s prior ruling that it lacks
jurisdiction to reduce Defendant’s sentence.
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 753 Filed 04/28/25 Page 2 of 2