Case: 25-50391 Document: 37-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/18/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50391 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ December 18, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Orlando Lozoya, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:19-CR-11-2 ______________________________ Before Davis, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Orlando Lozoya, federal prisoner # 23700-480, appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based upon Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, and also appeals the denial of his postjudgment motion for reconsideration. However, even when his pro se filings are liberally construed, Lozoya does not brief a _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50391 Document: 37-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/18/2025

No. 25-50391

challenge to the district court’s determination that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782.

Accordingly, he has waived the issue of his ineligibility. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

In any event, the record reflects that Lozoya was sentenced after Amendment 782’s effective date and that he received the benefit of this amendment in the calculation of the applicable guidelines range. Thus, he was not “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), and he was thus ineligible for the claimed sentence reduction, Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-26 (2010). Given his ineligibility for a sentence reduction, Lozoya’s contention that the district court erred in not discussing the 18 U.S.C § 3553(a) factors is unavailing.

Lastly, to the extent that Lozoya challenges the district court’s drug quantity calculation at the original sentencing hearing, such an argument is not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011).

In light of the foregoing, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lozoya’s motions seeking a reduction and for reconsideration. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.