USA v. Hunley

U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Eastern 	District of 	Tennessee
United States of America
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
Steven Keith Hunley
Case No: 	3:19-CR-174-KAC-JEM
USM No: 	53680-074
Date of Original Judgment: 	10/23/2020
Date of Previous Amended Judgment: 	Jonathan A. Moffatt
Defendant’s Attorney
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
Upon motion of 	the defendant 	the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 	the court under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10
and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:
DENIED. 	GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment of
months is reduced to 	.
Please see the attached analysis.
Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated 	shall remain in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Order Date:
Judge’s signature
Effective Date: 	KATHERINE A. CRYTZER, United States District Judge
(if different from order date) 	Printed name and title
Juuu	Juuuuuu	Juuuuu	Juuuuu	Juuuuu	Juuuuuuu	Ju	Juuuuuuuuuuuuuuu	Juuuuuuuuuuuu	Juu	Juuuuuuu	Juuuuu	Juuuu	Ju	Juuuuuuuuu	JJuuuuuuu	JJu	Juuuu	JJJuuuddddg	ddddddddddg	dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd e’s signatu
KATHERINE A CRYTZER Unit
Case 3:19-cr-00174-KAC-JEM Document 31 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	3:19-CR-174-KAC-JEM
)
STEVEN KEITH HUNLEY, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ANALYSIS
This case is before the Court on Defendant Steven Keith Hunley’s pro se “Motion to
Reduce Sentence” [Doc. 28] and the “Notice of No Intention to File a Supplemental Motion”
[Doc. 29] filed by his counsel.1 On December 19, 2019, Defendant pled guilty to an information
charging him with unlawfully possessing firearms and ammunition as a felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) [See Docs. 1, 3, 7, 9]. 	At his sentencing hearing on October 23, 2020, the
Court determined that Defendant was an armed career criminal based on his prior convictions for
burglary, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault and sentenced him to 180 months’
imprisonment, the minimum sentence required by law for someone with that designation
[Doc. 20 at 13, 28 (Sentencing Hearing Transcript 13:15-22, 28:17-23)]. 	See 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e)(1). Thereafter, Defendant filed the instant Motion, asking the Court to “amend, correct,
and or vacate his sentence due to” Amendment 821 of the Sentencing Guidelines [Doc. 28 at 2].
The United States opposed [Doc. 30].
Generally, a district court “does not have the authority to change or modify [a] sentence
unless such authority is expressly granted by statute.” United States v. Thompson, 714 F.3d 946,
Case 3:19-cr-00174-KAC-JEM Document 31 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
948 (6th Cir. 2013). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) provides that if “a defendant has been sentenced to a
term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o),” then “the Court may reduce the term of
imprisonment, 	after 	considering” 	the 	relevant 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 3553(a) 	factors 	and 	the
“applicable [Sentencing Commission] policy statements.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis
added). A defendant’s sentence is not “based on” a sentencing range, however, “when the ranges
play no relevant part in the judge’s determination of the defendant’s ultimate sentence.” Koons
v. United States, 584 U.S. 700, 705 (2018); see also United States v. Webb, 760 F.3d 513, 520
(6th Cir. 2014) (“Defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because his
[statutorily-required minimum] sentence was not ‘based on’ a sentencing range that was
subsequently lowered.”).
Here, Defendant is ineligible for a reduction because his sentence was not “based on a
sentencing 	range 	that 	has 	subsequently 	been 	lowered 	by 	the 	Sentencing 	Commission.”
See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also Koons, 584 U.S. at 705. 	The Court determined that
Defendant was an armed career criminal and sentenced him to the minimum sentence required
by law for someone with that designation [Doc. 20 at 13 (Sentencing Hearing Transcript 13:15-
22)]. 	See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). 	As such, Defendant’s sentence was based on a statute, “not
based on a Guidelines range.” See Koons, 584 U.S. at 705; Webb, 760 F.3d at 520. 	Section
3582(c)(2), therefore, provides no basis for relief.
1 In his Motion, Defendant requested counsel, and the Court appointed counsel under Standing
Order 24-05.
Case 3:19-cr-00174-KAC-JEM Document 31 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>