United States of America v. Alyssa Murry, also known as Alyssa Hoselton

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1791
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Alyssa Murry, also known as Alyssa Hoselton,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: May 12, 2025
Filed: July 22, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, SMITH and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 4 --

PER CURIAM.
Alyssa Murry appeals an order of the district court* denying her motion for a
reduction in sentence. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion, and
affirm the order.
Murry is serving a term of imprisonment after she was convicted of conspiring
to distribute heroin between March 2019 and September 2020. At the time of the
drug trafficking offense, Murry was on probation for a previous felony conviction for
forgery. In the drug case, the district court calculated an advisory sentencing
guideline range of 84 to 105 months’ imprisonment, and sentenced Murry to 84
months in 2021.
On November 1, 2023, the Sentencing Commission amended USSG § 4A1.1
to eliminate two criminal history points for committing a federal offense while under
a criminal justice sentence. Instead, an offender under a criminal justice sentence
receives one status point if she has seven or more criminal history points or no status
points if she has six or fewer points. See USSG § 4A1.1(e). The Commission made
the amendment retroactive. Id. § 1B1.10(d), comment. (n.7).
Murry moved for a reduction in sentence based on the amendment. See 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court determined that Murry was eligible for a
reduction because the amendment would reduce her advisory guideline range to 70
to 87 months’ imprisonment. But the court concluded that no reduction was
warranted in light of Murry’s criminal history and post-conviction conduct. We
review de novo the district court’s determination of a defendant’s eligibility for a
reduction in sentence, and we review for abuse of discretion the district court’s
*The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.
-2-

-- 2 of 4 --

decision to grant or deny an authorized reduction in sentence. See United States v.
Burnell, 2 F.4th 790, 791 (8th Cir. 2021).
When the advisory guideline range applicable to a defendant is lowered by an
amendment to the guidelines, “the court may reduce the defendant’s term of
imprisonment.” USSG § 1B1.10(a)(1); see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A district court
should apply a two-step approach to decide whether to grant a reduction in sentence.
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 821 (2010). The court first should determine
the inmate’s eligibility for a sentence modification and the inmate’s amended
guideline range. Id.; USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1). The court must then consider whether
a reduction is warranted under the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Dillon,
560 U.S. at 821; 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); USSG § 1B1.10 comment. (n.1(B)(i)).
The district court properly applied this two-step approach. The court
determined that Murry’s guideline range would have been lower if the amendment
had been in effect at Murry’s sentencing. The court thus determined correctly that
Murry was eligible for a reduction in sentence.
The district court then considered the sentencing factors under § 3553(a),
including the defendant’s post-conviction conduct. See United States v. Burrell, 622
F.3d 961, 964 (8th Cir. 2010); USSG § 1B1.10 comment. (n.(1)(B)(iii)). The court
found that “all signs indicate Murry is a danger to the community,” and concluded
that no reduction in sentence was warranted.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. Murry was convicted of
distributing between seven hundred grams and one kilogram of heroin. She has
sustained prior felony convictions for forgery and for a hit-and-run driving offense
resulting in death or injury. Before serving her current sentence, Murry repeatedly
failed to abide by the terms of her parole or probation. During her current term of
incarceration, Murry has received disciplinary sanctions for mail abuse, refusing to
-3-

-- 3 of 4 --

obey an order, and refusing a work or program assignment. This record of recidivism,
misconduct, and incorrigibility justifies the district court’s exercise of discretion.
Murry points out that she presented evidence of rehabilitation through efforts
to address her drug addiction. But the district court has wide latitude to weigh the
relevant factors, and the court permissibly concluded that the aggravating factors
justified denial of the motion.
The order of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-4-

-- 4 of 4 --