USA v. Warren

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	CRIMINAL ACTION
v. 	)
) 	No. 11-20040-01-KHV
STEVEN CARMICHAEL WARREN, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
____________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On April 30, 2012, the Honorable William P. Johnson sentenced defendant to 300 months
in prison and five years of supervised release. 	On January 7, 2014, the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion For Reduction Of Sentence Pursuant To
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) And Amendment 821 To The Federal Sentencing Guidelines (Doc. #71)
filed October 14, 2025. 	For reasons stated below, the Court dismisses defendant’s motion.
A federal district court may modify a defendant’s sentence only where Congress has
expressly authorized it to do so. 	See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b)–(c); United States v. Blackwell, 81 F.3d
945, 947 (10th Cir. 1996). 	Congress has set forth only three limited circumstances in which a
court may modify a sentence: (1) upon motion of the BOP Director or defendant under
Section 3582(c)(1)(A); (2) when “expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35” of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure; and (3) when defendant has been sentenced “based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 	18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
Here, defendant seeks a reduced sentence under retroactive Amendment 821.
Defendant seeks relief under Section 3582(c)(2), which permits the Court to reduce a
sentence if defendant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment “based on a sentencing range
Case 2:11-cr-20040-KHV Document 74 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 3

-2-
that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o).”
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). 	To obtain relief under Section 3582(c)(2), defendant must overcome three
distinct hurdles: (1) under the statute’s “based on” clause, defendant must show he was sentenced
based on a guideline range the Sentencing Commission lowered after his sentencing; (2) under the
statute’s “consistent with” clause, defendant must show that his request for a sentence reduction is
consistent with the Commission’s policy statements and (3) defendant must convince the district
court that he is entitled to relief in light of the sentencing factors in Section 3553(a). 	United States
v. C.D., 848 F.3d 1286, 1289–90 (10th Cir. 2017). 	Under Tenth Circuit precedent, the first hurdle
is jurisdictional. 	Id. at 1289; see United States v. Mata-Soto, No. 22-3012, 2022 WL 2128429, at
*1 (10th Cir. June 14, 2022).
Defendant 	argues 	that 	he 	is 	entitled 	to 	relief 	under 	Section 3582(c)(2) 	because
Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines reduced the criminal history points
for defendants who commit offenses while on supervised release. 	The Sentencing Commission
voted to apply the amendment retroactively to offenders who are currently incarcerated. 	U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(d). 	The Court originally added two criminal history points because defendant
committed the instant offense while he was serving a term of supervised release. 	See Presentence
Investigation Report (Doc. #20) filed February 2, 2012, ¶ 54; U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) (Nov. 1, 2016
ed.). 	Amendment 821 reduces defendant’s criminal history points from 11 to 10. 	See U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.1(e) (Nov. 1, 2025 ed.) (adding one criminal history point for offenses committed while on
supervised release if defendant otherwise has at least seven criminal history points). 	Even so, the
Court did not calculate defendant’s criminal history based on the number of criminal history points.
Instead, the Court classified defendant as a career offender under Section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing
Guidelines, so his criminal history category was VI. 	See Presentence Investigation Report (Doc.
Case 2:11-cr-20040-KHV Document 74 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 3

-3-
#20), ¶ 55; U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) (Nov. 1, 2025 ed.) (career offender’s criminal history category in
every case under this subsection shall be category VI). 	Amendment 821 therefore did not lower
defendant’s guideline range. 	Accordingly, the Court dismisses defendant’s motion to reduce
sentence.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion For Reduction Of Sentence
Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) And Amendment 821 To The Federal Sentencing Guidelines
(Doc. #71) filed October 14, 2025 is DISMISSED.
Dated this 9th day of December, 2025 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
Case 2:11-cr-20040-KHV Document 74 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 3