Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10116/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10116-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Julian Orozco-Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10116

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE JULIAN OROZCO-LOPEZ, also known as Jose Julian Orozco-Torres,

also known as Jose Julian Lopez-Torres,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-50-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Julian Orozco-Lopez, federal prisoner # 41253-177, is serving a 324-

month term of imprisonment for conspiring to possess with the intent to 

distribute methamphetamine. He appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence based on Amendment 

782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 4, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10116 Document: 00513258881 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2015
No. 15-10116

2

offense levels in the drug quantity table set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). 

Orozco-Lopez asks this court to appoint counsel in his case.

At his original sentencing, Orozco-Lopez was assigned a base offense 

level of 38 under § 2D1.1(c)(1) because his offense involved the equivalent of 

324,437.32 kilograms of marijuana. Under amended § 2D1.1(c), OrozcoLopez’s base offense level remains 38. § 2D1.1(c)(1). In determining the effect 

of an amendment for purposes of § 3582(c)(2), a defendant’s other applicable 

sentencing adjustments and criminal history remain unchanged. U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10(b)(1). Thus, Amendment 782 did not lower Orozco-Lopez’s applicable 

guidelines range of 324-405 months of imprisonment, and § 3582(c)(2) does not 

authorize a reduction in his sentence. See § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.

Orozco-Lopez complains that the district court should not have based its 

decision on his presentence report without giving him notice and an 

opportunity to challenge its reliability. He also complains that the district 

court denied his motion without considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors 

and gave him no opportunity to respond to its decision. He has not shown an 

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 711-12 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Nor has he shown that the district court abused its discretion by 

declining to appoint counsel. We will not consider Orozco-Lopez’s challenges 

to his conviction and original sentence, which are raised for the first time on 

appeal and are not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. 

Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010-11 (5th Cir. 1995).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Orozco-Lopez’s motion 

for the appointment of appellate counsel is DENIED.

 Case: 15-10116 Document: 00513258881 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2015