USA v. Adams et al

- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Elijah K. Thompson,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:20-cr-00068
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
[¶1] 	THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion to Reduce Sentence filed by the
Defendant on April 8, 2024. Doc. No. 1736. The Federal Public Defender’s Office was appointed
to represent the Defendant. Defense Counsel filed a Notice of Intent Not to Supplement the
Defendant’s Motion on April 10, 2024. Doc. No. 1739. The United States filed a Response on May
7, 2024. Doc. No. 1750. The Defendant did not file a Reply. For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is DENIED.
[¶2] 	The Defendant seeks a reduction of his sentence based upon Amendment 821 to the United
States Sentencing Guidelines which went into effect on November 1, 2023. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), a defendant may seek a sentence reduction if he has “been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission[.]” In Part A to Amendment 821, the United States Sentencing Commission made
changes to the “status points” provision which are criminal history points added when a defendant
committed the instant offense while under another criminal justice sentence. In Part B, Subpart 1
to Amendment 821, the Sentencing Commission created a two-level reduction in the total offense
Case 1:20-cr-00068-DMT Document 1770 Filed 06/26/24 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
level for defendants receiving zero criminal history points and whose offense did not involve
certain criteria.
[¶3] 	The Defendant’s sentence was not based on a guidelines range that was subsequently
lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). First, the Defendant was
sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment, which was the statutory mandatory minimum. Doc. Nos.
1213, 1214, 1192, ¶¶ 53, 54. Amendment 821 has not effect on the statutory minimum sentence.
Second, even assuming the Defendant is entitled to a Guidelines range reeducation to under
Amendment 821, the sixty-month mandatory minimum would remain the guidelines range for his
sentencing. See USSG § 5G1.1(b) (“Where a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than
the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall
be the guideline sentence.”); USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the
defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term
that is less than the minimum of the amended guidelines range determined under subdivision (1)
of this subsection.”). In short, the Defendant received a guidelines sentence and nothing in
Amendment 821 alters the Guidelines range.
[¶4] 	The record demonstrates that Amendment 821 does not apply to the Defendant. Therefore,
the Defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly,
the Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence is DENIED.
[¶5] 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED June 26, 2024.
Daniel M. Traynor, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:20-cr-00068-DMT Document 1770 Filed 06/26/24 Page 2 of 2