United States v. Herrera

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: May 28, 2026
• Docket: 25-6116
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-6116 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 28, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 25-6116 (D.C. No. 5:22-CR-00233-SLP-1) ANTONIO ORTIZ HERRERA, (W.D. Okla.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before MATHESON, MORITZ, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

A federal court generally “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has

been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). But this general rule has exceptions. One

exception allows courts to reduce sentences imposed “based on a sentencing range

that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2).

Through Amendment 782, the Sentencing Commission “reduced the base offense

levels assigned to certain drug offenses.” United States v. Green, 886 F.3d 1300,

1302 (10th Cir. 2018).

We have honored the parties’ request for a decision without oral argument. *

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This decision is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-6116 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 2

Citing Amendment 782, Antonio Ortiz Herrera 1 moved for a reduction of the

prison sentence he received after pleading guilty to a drug crime. The district court

concluded he was ineligible for a reduction based on Amendment 782 because his

sentence already accounted for it. After all, the amendment took effect nearly ten

years before Ortiz received his sentence. Having found Ortiz ineligible for a shorter

sentence based on Amendment 782, the court dismissed his motion.

Ortiz appeals the dismissal. Yet he never attempts to explain why the district

court’s reason for dismissing his motion was wrong. 2 He has therefore waived any

challenge to the court’s decision. See Santucci v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary

Barracks, 66 F.4th 844, 851 n.9 (10th Cir. 2023).

Even if we were to overlook Ortiz’s waiver and review the district court’s

decision de novo, see United States v. Rhodes, 549 F.3d 833, 837 (10th Cir. 2008),

we would still affirm. Amendment 782 took effect in 2014. United States v. Kurtz,

819 F.3d 1230, 1233 (10th Cir. 2016). And so it already factored into Ortiz’s 2024

sentence.

1 Following Appellant’s lead, we will refer to him as Ortiz. And because he represents himself, we construe his filings liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 2 The arguments Ortiz raises—related to the drug quantities attributed to him and the nature of his plea agreement—have no bearing on his eligibility for a reduced sentence. 2 Appellate Case: 25-6116 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 3

* * *

We grant Ortiz’s motion to proceed without prepaying costs or fees (Dkt.

No. 11). We affirm the district court’s order.

Entered for the Court

Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge