United States of America v. Tereze L. Fenderson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 20, 2024 *
Decided November 20, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1323
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TEREZE L. FENDERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 17-CR-30090-SPM-1
Stephen P. McGlynn,
Judge.
O R D E R
Tereze Fenderson appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) based on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing
Guidelines. Because the district court appropriately exercised its discretion to deny the
motion based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-1323 Page 2
In 2017, Fenderson was arrested for possessing a firearm as a felon. After being
released on bond, he shot a fellow associate who had cooperated with agents, and then
he fled the scene. In 2019, he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm,
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), attempting to retaliate against a witness, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1513(b)(2), 2, and discharging a firearm in connection with a crime of violence,
18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), 2. The court calculated a guidelines range of 212 to 235
months’ imprisonment (a 92-to-115-month range based on an offense level of 26 for
counts 1 and 3 and a criminal history category of IV, plus a 120-month statutory
minimum term for count 4, to run consecutively) and sentenced him to 212 months.
In 2024, Fenderson moved to reduce his sentence based on the enactment of an
amendment to Chapter Four of the Guidelines that concerned the computation of
criminal history points. Under Amendment 821, district courts could no longer add
points to the criminal history score of a defendant like Fenderson who committed an
offense while under a criminal justice sentence and had six or fewer criminal history
points. See U.S. SENT ' G G UIDELINES MANUAL A MEND. 821 (U.S. SENT ' G C OMM' N 2023);
United States v. Claybron, 88 F.4th 1226, 1228 (7th Cir. 2023). After Fenderson was
sentenced, the amendment became retroactively effective. U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10(d),
4A1.1(e). The government agreed that the amendment reduced Fenderson’s criminal
history score to six and the corresponding category to III, resulting in a lower advisory
guidelines sentence of 78 to 97 months on counts 1 and 3 (and 198 to 217 months in
total), but nevertheless opposed the motion based on the § 3553(a) factors —and
specifically, concerns about protecting the public, see § 3553(a)(2)(C), given the
seriousness of Fenderson’s underlying conduct and his disciplinary infractions while
imprisoned.
The district court agreed with the government’s position and denied the motion.
On appeal, Fenderson argues that the district court insufficiently justified its
denial of his motion when it considered only one § 3553(a) factor and not the others. But
a court need offer only “one good reason” to deny a motion. United States v. Williams,
61 F.4th 521, 524 (7th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Rucker, 27 F.4th 560, 563 (7th
Cir. 2022). The court need not analyze every § 3553(a) factor, so long as its explanation
is consistent with § 3553(a). United States v. Clayton, 811 F.3d 918, 921 (7th Cir. 2016). The
district court’s explanation satisfies this standard: It cited public safety concerns,
pointing to Fenderson’s record both in and out of prison. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C).
Fenderson also argues, for the first time, that the district court—as part of its
§ 3553(a) assessment—should have accounted for his extensive participation in the

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-1323 Page 3
prison’s recidivism-reduction programming. But though the district court could have
considered Fenderson’s post-conviction behavior, he presented no such evidence to the
district court, and so no discussion was necessary. See Clayton, 811 F.3d at 921 n.1.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --