USA v. Hines et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICHARD STARK,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:21-CR-30148-DWD-5
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Defendant Richard Stark, proceeding pro se, has filed a letter in this case that the
Court will construe as a Motion for Reduction in Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines.
(Doc. 504). Stark states that he was told about a “two-point reduction” in his sentencing
and asks the Court to consider reducing his sentence accordingly. The Government
opposes the motion. (Doc. 506). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
On March 29, 2022, Defendant Stark pled guilty to one count for conspiracy to
distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) and
one count for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(vii). (Doc. 126). Prior to sentencing, a Presentence
Investigation Report submitted by the Office of Probation found Stark to have a total
criminal history score of 14, a criminal history category of VI and a resulting Guideline
imprisonment range of 292 to 365 months. (Doc. 153). Pursuant to the applicable
Case 3:21-cr-30148-DWD Document 509 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
guidelines at that time, two of the points included in Stark’s total criminal history score
were given because Stark committed the offense while on parole. (Doc. 153, pg. 12).
On July 26, 2022, the undersigned sentenced Stark to a total term of imprisonment
of 292 months. (Doc. 168). The Court later reduced Stark’s sentence to 195 months. (Doc.
437). Defendant Stark filed the instant, two-sentence motion on August 26, 2025, asking
the Court to consider reducing his sentence because he was “told by someone” during
his incarceration about a “two-point reduction off their sentence” that can result in a
reduced sentence. (Doc. 504).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court may reduce the term of imprisonment where
a defendant’s sentence is “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered 	by 	the 	Sentencing 	Commission.” 	Amendment 	821 	of 	the 	United 	States
Sentencing Commission Guidelines amended U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 to add one point instead
of two to the defendant’s criminal history score when the defendant “committed the
offense while under any criminal justice sentence.”
Upon review of the record and the legal authorities, the Court FINDS Defendant
cannot benefit from § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 (Part A). As noted by the
Government, 	Defendant's 	criminal 	history points 	would 	be reduced 	under 	those
provisions from 14 to 13, but he would still be subject to the criminal history category of
VI. (Doc. 506, pg. 4). By extension, Defendant's guideline sentencing range would be
unchanged. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (“A reduction in the defendant's term of
imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized
Case 3:21-cr-30148-DWD Document 509 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if… [a]n amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have
the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.”).
In short, Defendant’s sentence was within the guideline sentencing range when it
was issued and § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 do not affect the calculation of that
range. Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction, so his Motion is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 20, 2026
/s/ David W. Dugan
______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
Case 3:21-cr-30148-DWD Document 509 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>