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-21-76-9-SLP
)
ARTEMIO CARRILLO RAMIREZ, )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
Before the Court is Defendant’s pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence [Doc. No. 690].
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. 694] 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. 691]. For the reasons that follow,
Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence is DISMISSED.
I. Background
On March 24, 2022, Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Doc. Nos. 315-317. On
April 6, 2023, the United States Probation Office filed its Final Presentence Investigation
Report (PSR). Doc. No. 485. The PSR calculated a base offense level of 38, plus (1) a
two-level enhancement because the methamphetamine was unlawfully imported from
Mexico, and (2) a two-level enhancement because Defendant maintained a premise that
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 742 Filed 10/30/24 Page 1 of 5

2
was used for converting liquid methamphetamine to crystallized methamphetamine. Id.,
¶¶ 36-38. Defendant’s adjusted offense level was 42. Id., ¶ 40. After applying a three-
level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the PSR calculated a total offense level of
39. Id., ¶¶ 47-48.
The PSR calculated a total criminal history score of zero for Defendant, placing him
in a criminal history category of I. Id., ¶¶ 47-48. 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., ¶ 70.
On May 8, 2023, the Court adopted the PSR without change, varied downward, and
sentenced Defendant to 204 months’ imprisonment. Doc. Nos. 535, 537, 538.
On March 27, 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 742 Filed 10/30/24 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 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;
(8) the instant offense of conviction is not covered by § 2H1.1 (Offenses
Involving Individual Rights);
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 742 Filed 10/30/24 Page 3 of 5

4
III. Analysis
Defendant argues that because he has zero criminal history points, and, therefore, is
a zero-point offender, he is entitled to a decrease in the guideline range by two offense
levels. Applying Amendment 821, Defendant’s offense level changes from 39 to 37.
Combining Defendant’s new total offense level of 37 with his original criminal history
category of I, Defendant’s amended guideline range is lowered to 210 to 262 months’
imprisonment. Defendant’s current sentence of 204 months’ imprisonment is already less
than the purported amended guideline range. Therefore, Defendant is not eligible for a
sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)-(B); see also Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827.
For the reasons set forth, a sentence reduction is not authorized under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821. 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 to Reduce Sentence [Doc.
No. 690] 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 742 Filed 10/30/24 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of October, 2024.
Case 5:21-cr-00076-SLP Document 742 Filed 10/30/24 Page 5 of 5