USA v. Robinson

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ZAIRE ROBINSON,
Defendant.
8:22-CR-68
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO REDUCE SENTENCE
This matter is before the Court on defendant Zaire Robinson’s pro se Motion to Reduce
Sentence. Filing 67. The defendant states: “I am writing in regards to an intervening relevent [sic]
change in the law that may be applicable to me regarding the amended Act 821.” Filing 67 at 1. He
asks the Court to “[p]lease forward any pertinent details in reference to criminal history
enhancements” and to “appoint counsel in the matter at hand.” Filing 67 at 1. The defendant’s letter
contains almost no detail. However, “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed,” and the
Court has liberally construed the defendant’s letter—specifically his reference to “amended Act
821”—to be a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to
the United States Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Sellner, 773 F.3d 927, 932 (8th Cir. 2014)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). For the reasons below, the defendant’s motion is
denied.
Section 3582(c)(2) of Title 18 of the United States Code provides that “in the case of a
defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” a “court may reduce the term of
8:22-cr-00068-BCB-MDN Doc # 68 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 1 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are
applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). “[A] defendant is eligible for a discretionary §
3582(c)(2) reduction if his applicable guidelines range is lowered by a retroactive amendment listed
in [U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.10(d).” United States v. Koons, 850 F.3d 973, 976 (8th Cir. 2017). Amendment
821—specifically Part A and Part B, Subpart 1 of the amendment—appears in the list of covered
amendments in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) and is therefore retroactively applicable.
Part A of the amendment affected U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1, which sets forth the calculation of a
defendant’s criminal history category. Prior to Amendment 821, subsection (d) of § 4A1.1 provided
that a defendant would receive 2 criminal history points—known as “status points”—if he
committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence. Compare U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1
(2015), with U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 (2023). Part A struck that language from subsection (d), made the
original subsection (e) the new subsection (d), and added a new subsection (e) that attributes 1 point
to a defendant who has received 7 or more points under subsections (a) through (d) and who has
committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1
(2023). Part B, Subpart 1 of the amendment added U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
At the time Amendment 821 took effect, § 4C1.1 provided that a defendant would receive a 2-level
decrease in his offense level if he met 10 stated criteria, including the requirement that he “did not
receive any criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A.” U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(1) (2023). In
2024, Amendment 831 replaced the tenth criteria in § 4C1.1 with a new paragraph 10 and added
paragraph 11; however, the first requirement—that the defendant not receive any criminal history
points—remained the same. U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(1) (2024). Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(e)(2),
Amendment 821’s retroactive effect began on February 1, 2024. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(e)(2) (“The
8:22-cr-00068-BCB-MDN Doc # 68 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 2 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
court shall not order a reduced term of imprisonment based on Part A or Part B, Subpart 1 of
Amendment 821 unless the effective date of the court’s order is February 1, 2024, or later.”).
The defendant in this case was sentenced on February 8, 2023, approximately nine months
before Amendment 821 took effect, and approximately one year before Amendment 821’s effective
date for retroactivity. Filing 59 (Text Minute Entry). Despite Amendment 821’s retroactive
application to the defendant, Amendment 821 does not offer the defendant any relief. Part A does
not provide the defendant relief because he was not assessed any status points under the old version
of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). See generally Filing 60 (Second Revised Presentence Investigation Report).
Part B, Subpart 1 does not provide the defendant relief because he cannot meet the first criterion for
a zero-point offender adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. The first requirement for the zero-point
offender adjustment is that the defendant “did not receive any criminal history points from Chapter
Four, Part A.” U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(1). Here, it is evident from the defendant’s Second Revised
Presentence Investigation Report that he received nine criminal history points based on his prior
sentences of imprisonment. Filing 60 at 9–13. Those nine points place the defendant in criminal
history category IV, rendering him ineligible for a zero-point offender adjustment. Filing 60 at 13.
Because Part A and Part B, Subpart 1 of Amendment 821 do not impact the defendant’s
guideline calculations, the defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2), and the Court need not consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The Court therefore
denies the defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence. The defendant’s request for the appointment of
counsel in relation to that motion is also denied. United States v. Brown, 565 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th
Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[T]here is no constitutional right to counsel in § 3582(c) proceedings.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence, Filing 67, is denied.
8:22-cr-00068-BCB-MDN Doc # 68 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 3 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

4
Dated this 25th day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________
Brian C. Buescher
United States District Judge
8:22-cr-00068-BCB-MDN Doc # 68 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 4 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>