United States of America v. Evans et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
) 	CASE NO.: 4:18-CR-717-1
Plaintiff, 	) 	JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN
)
v. 	) 	ORDER
) 	[Resolving Doc. 140]
DARYL EVANS, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
Defendant Daryl Evans moves pro se for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2), citing amendments to Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.4 that became effective
November 1, 2024.1 The United States opposes the motion. 2 The Federal Public Defender,
appointed to review the pro se motion, declined to file a supplement after consulting with
Evans.3
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Evans's motion.
I. Background
In 2019, Evans pleaded guilty to seven counts including Mail Fraud, Conspiracy to
Commit Mail Fraud, Use of Fire to Commit a Felony, and Destroying Property Used in
Interstate Commerce.4 His crime involved hiring others to set fire to his rental properties in
1 Doc. 140.
2 Doc. 143.
3 Doc. 142.
4 Doc. 66: Plea Agreement, PageID 349-61.
Case: 4:18-cr-00717-JG Doc #: 145 Filed: 02/05/26 1 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

Warren, Ohio to collect fraudulent insurance proceeds. 5 The scheme involved three arsons
between 2013 and 2015, resulting in $146,000 in fraudulent insurance payments. 6
As part of Evans's plea agreement, the government agreed to dismiss Count 7 (Use
of Fire to Commit Felony, Second or Subsequent Conviction), reducing the mandatory
minimum prison sentence from 35 years to 15 years. 7 The Presentence Report calculated
Evans's Guidelines range as 183 to 198 months. 8 On July 25, 2019, the Court sentenced
Evans to 183 months' imprisonment—at the very bottom of the Guidelines range and
below the sentence that Evans had agreed to. 9
This is Evans's third post-sentence motion. In August 2020, he moved for
compassionate release citing COVID-19, age, and health conditions. The Court denied the
motion, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.10 In November 2023, Evans filed a second
compassionate release motion. The Court denied that motion in March 2024. 11
II. Legal Standard
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court may reduce a defendant's sentence if: (1) the
defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered
by the Sentencing Commission; (2) the reduction is consistent with applicable policy
5 Doc. 82: PSR, PageID 511-12.
6
Id.
7 Doc. 66: Plea Agreement, PageID 351, 353-54; see 18 U.S.C. § 844(h)(1).
8 Doc. 82: PSR, PageID 525.
9 Doc. 84: Judgment.
10 Doc. 108 (motion); Doc. 111 (order denying motion);
United States v. Evans, Sixth Circuit Case No. 21-
3361 (affirming denial).
11 Doc. 136 (motion); Doc. 139 (order denying motion)
Case: 4:18-cr-00717-JG Doc #: 145 Filed: 02/05/26 2 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; and (3) after considering the factors set
forth in § 3553(a), a reduction is warranted. 12
In
Dillon v. United States, the Supreme Court emphasized that courts must follow
the Sentencing Commission's instructions in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 to determine a prisoner's
eligibility for a sentence modification and the extent of reduction authorized. 13 Section
1B1.10(d) lists the specific amendments that may be applied retroactively. 14
A court may deny a compassionate release motion when
any of the three
requirements is lacking and need not address the others. 15
III. Analysis
Evans's motion fails because the amendments he cites are not retroactive and therefore
cannot support a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2).
Evans cites amendments to Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.4 (Use of Firearm, Armor-
Piercing Ammunition, or Explosive During or in Relation to Certain Crimes) that became
effective November 1, 2024. These are Sentencing Commission Amendments 828 and
831. But neither Amendment 828 nor Amendment 831 is listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) as
retroactive.
The Sentencing Commission determines which amendments apply retroactively,
and courts are bound by that determination. 16 If an amendment is not listed in § 1B1.10(d),
12 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
13
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 821, 827 (2010).
14 14 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d).
15
United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 2021).
16
Dillon, 560 U.S. at 821, 827
Case: 4:18-cr-00717-JG Doc #: 145 Filed: 02/05/26 3 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

it cannot support a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), regardless of how significant the
amendment may be.
Because the cited amendments are not retroactive, Evans's motion must be denied.
Having found the amendments are not retroactive, this Court need not reach the other
requirements under § 3582(c)(2). 17
Even if the amendments were retroactive—which they are not—Evans has not
explained how they would apply to his case or result in a lower Guidelines calculation. He
provides no analysis of whether § 2K2.4 was used in his sentencing, what his amended
Guidelines range would be, or how much of a reduction he seeks. This lack of specificity
gives a separate reason for denying the motion.
Moreover, the § 3553(a) factors also do not support a reduction even if Evans could
satisfy the threshold requirements. This Court has balanced those factors three times and
concluded each time that a 183-month sentence is appropriate: at the original sentencing
in 2019; when denying Evans's first compassionate release motion in 2020 (affirmed by the
Sixth Circuit); and when denying his second compassionate release motion in 2024.18
Evans does not show added information that would alter that finding.
The nature and circumstances of the offense remain serious. Evans orchestrated
three arsons of rental properties to defraud insurance companies, endangering firefighters
and neighbors. He has served approximately five years of his 183-month sentence—one-
17
Elias, 984 F.3d at 519
18 Doc. 101: Sentencing Trans., PageID 621-45; Doc. 111: Order, PageID 765; Doc. 139: Order, PageID 992.
Case: 4:18-cr-00717-JG Doc #: 145 Filed: 02/05/26 4 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

third. The Court already sentenced Evans at the bottom of the Guidelines range after the
government agreed to dismiss a count that would have imposed a 35-year mandatory
minimum. The requested reduction would undermine the purposes of sentencing.
Finally, the government correctly notes that even if Evans satisfied all requirements,
the sentencing statutes that Evans pled guilty to requires a mandatory minimum sentence of
180 months. Regardless of any change to the Guidelines range, the mandatory minimum
statute trumps the Guidelines. Thus, at most, the Court could reduce his sentence by only
three months.19
IV. Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Evans's motion for a sentence reduction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2026
s/ James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19 Doc. 143: Gov't Response, PageID 1027.
Case: 4:18-cr-00717-JG Doc #: 145 Filed: 02/05/26 5 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>