USA v. Riederer

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, )
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
) MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
vs. )
)
Chance Cyril Riederer, ) Case No. 1:17-cr-050
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),
filed on May 28, 2024. See Doc. No. 57. The Government filed a response in opposition to the
motion on June 24, 2024. See Doc. No. 59. The Defendant filed a reply brief on August 19, 2024.
See Doc. No. 64. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2017, the Defendant was charged in a multi-count indictment alleging two drug and three
gun offenses. See Doc. No. 1. On August 27, 2018, the Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a binding
plea agreement to two counts of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. See Doc.
No. 43. The binding plea agreement called for a sentence of 96 months of imprisonment.
The Presentence Investigation Report calculated a total offense level of 23 with a criminal
history category of VI, resulting in an advisory Sentencing Guideline range of 92 to 115 months. See
Doc. No. 50, ¶ 80. The Defendant’s criminal history resulted in 11 scorable criminal history points.
Because he committed the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence, another 2 points
were added under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). See Doc. No. 50, ¶¶ 32-34. Therefore he had a total of 13
criminal history points, which placed him in criminal history category VI. See Doc. No. 50, ¶ 34.
1
Case 1:17-cr-00050-DLH Document 65 Filed 09/11/24 Page 1 of 7

At sentencing on November 26, 2018, the Court adopted the Presentence Investigation Report
without change and Court sentenced the Defendant to 96-months of imprisonment and 3 years of
supervised release as called for by the binding plea agreement. See Doc. No. 53.
On February 23, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion seeking a sentence reduction under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 contending his Sentencing Guideline range was lowered
by Part A of Amendment 821 and thus he should receive a sentence reduction. See Doc. No. 57. The
Government filed a response in opposition to the motion on June 24, 2024. See Doc. No. 59. The
Defendant filed a reply on August 19, 2024. See Doc. No. 64. The Defendant is serving his sentence
at Lee USP in Pennington Gap, Virginia. He has a presumptive release date of February 19, 2026.
II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
Under the federal sentencing scheme, sentence modifications are available under very limited
circumstances. One circumstance in which a sentence reduction is permitted is when the applicable
Sentencing Guideline range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission and it makes the
amendment retroactive. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) of Title 18 of the United
States Code provides as follows:
[I]n 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term
of 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 applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
The applicable Sentencing Commission policy statement provides as follows:
(a) AUTHORITY.--
2
Case 1:17-cr-00050-DLH Document 65 Filed 09/11/24 Page 2 of 7

(1) IN GENERAL.--In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of
imprisonment, and the guideline range applicable to that defendant has
subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the
Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (d) below, the court may reduce
the defendant's term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), any such reduction
in the defendant's term of imprisonment shall be consistent with this
policy statement.
(2) EXCLUSIONS.--A reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment
is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not
authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if–
(A) none of the amendments listed in subsection (d) is applicable
to the defendant; or
(B) an amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have the effect
of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.
(3) LIMITATION.--Consistent with subsection (b), proceedings under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement do not constitute a full
resentencing of the defendant.
(b) DETERMINATION OF REDUCTION IN TERM OF IMPRISONMENT.--
(1) IN GENERAL--In determining whether, and to what extent, a
reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) and this policy statement is warranted, the court shall
determine the amended guideline range that would have been
applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines listed
in subsection (d) had been in effect at the time the defendant was
sentenced. In making such determination, the court shall substitute
only the amendments listed in subsection (d) for the corresponding
guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was
sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions
unaffected.
(2) LIMITATION AND PROHIBITION ON EXTENT OF
REDUCTION.--
(A) LIMITATION.--Except as provided in subdivision (B), the
court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a
term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline
range determined under subdivision (1) of this subsection.
3
Case 1:17-cr-00050-DLH Document 65 Filed 09/11/24 Page 3 of 7

(B) EXCEPTION FOR SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE.--If the
term of imprisonment imposed was less than the term of
imprisonment provided by the guideline range applicable to the
defendant at the time of sentencing pursuant to a government
motion to reflect the defendant's substantial assistance to
authorities, a reduction comparably less than the amended
guideline range determined under subdivision (1) of this
subsection may be appropriate.
(C) PROHIBITION.--In no event may the reduced term of
imprisonment be less than the term of imprisonment the
defendant has already served.
(c) CASES INVOLVING MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES AND
SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE.--If the case involves a statutorily required
minimum sentence and the court had the authority to impose a sentence below
the statutorily required minimum sentence pursuant to a government motion
to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities, then for purposes
of this policy statement the amended guideline range shall be determined
without regard to the operation of § 5G1.1 (Sentencing on a Single Count of
Conviction) and § 5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction).
(d) COVERED AMENDMENTS.--Amendments covered by this policy statement
are listed in Appendix C as follows: 126, 130, 156, 176, 269, 329, 341, 371,
379, 380, 433, 454, 461, 484, 488, 490, 499, 505, 506, 516, 591, 599, 606, 657,
702, 706 as amended by 711, 715, 750 (parts A and C only), 782 (subject to
subsection (e)(1)), and 821 (parts A and B, subpart 1 only and subject to
subsection (e)(2)).
(e) SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS.--
(1) The court shall not order a reduced term of imprisonment based on
Amendment 782 unless the effective date of the court’s order is
November 1, 2015, or later.
(2) The 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.
U.S.S.G. 1B1.10.
In Dillon v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed the process for application of a
retroactive guideline amendment, emphasizing that Section 1B1.10 is binding. 560 U.S. 817 (2010).
4
Case 1:17-cr-00050-DLH Document 65 Filed 09/11/24 Page 4 of 7

The Supreme Court instructed that “[a]ny reduction must be consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission” and Section 1B1.10 instructs the district court to
“substitute the amended Guidelines range while leav[ing] all other guideline application decisions
unaffected.” Id. at 821 (internal quotations omitted). The Supreme Court set forth a two-step
approach to apply:
At step one, § 3582(c)(2) requires the court to follow the Commission’s instructions
in §1B1.10 to determine the prisoner’s eligibility for a sentence modification and the
extent of the reduction authorized. Specifically, §1B1.10(b)(1) requires the court to
begin by “determin[ing] the amended guideline range that would have been applicable
to the defendant” had the relevant amendment been in effect at the time of the initial
sentencing. “In making such determination, the court shall substitute only the
amendments listed in subsection (c) for the corresponding guideline provisions that
were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline
application decisions
unaffected.” § 1B1.10(b)(1).
Consistent with the limited nature of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, §1B1.10(b)(2) also
confines the extent of the reduction authorized. Courts generally may “not reduce the
defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . to a term that is
less than the minimum of the amended guideline range” produced by the substitution.
§1B1.10(b)(2)(A). Only if the sentencing court originally imposed a term of
imprisonment below the Guidelines range does § 1B1.10 authorize a court proceeding
under § 3582(c)(2) to impose a term “comparably” below the amended range. §
1B1.10(b)(2)(B).
At step two of the inquiry, § 3582(c)(2) instructs a court to consider any applicable §
3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by
reference to the policies relevant at step one is warranted in whole or in part under the
particular circumstances of the case. Because reference to § 3553(a) is appropriate
only at the second step of this circumscribed inquiry, it cannot serve to transform the
proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) into plenary resentencing proceedings.
Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827
On November 1, 2023, Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines took
effect, pursuant to the Sentencing Commission’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 994(o). The amendment
applies retroactively. Amendment 821 has three parts and several subparts: Part A pertains to “Status
5
Case 1:17-cr-00050-DLH Document 65 Filed 09/11/24 Page 5 of 7

Points;” Part B pertains to “Zero-Point Offenders;” and Part C pertains to “Simple Possession of
Marihuana Offenses.”
In Part A to Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the United States
Sentencing Commission altered the “status points” provision regarding criminal history, which now
appears in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). Previously, the “status point” provision appeared in U.S.S.G. §
4A1.1(d) which added 2 points if the defendant “committed the instant offense while under any
criminal justice sentence[.]” The amended provision states as follows:
Add 1 point if the defendant (1) receives 7 or more points under subsections (a)
through (d), and (2) committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice
sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release,
or escape status.
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). A person who otherwise has 7 criminal history points or more now receives 1
additional “status” criminal history point instead of 2, while a person who otherwise has 6 criminal
history points or less receives no status points.
There is no right to counsel in Section 3582(c) proceedings. United States v. Brown, 565 F.3d
1093, 1094 (8th Cir. 2009). Nor is there a right to a hearing. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827-28
(observing that, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(b)(4), a defendant need not be present
at a proceeding under Section 3582(c)(2) regarding the imposition of a sentencing modification).
In this case, the Defendant had 11 scorable criminal history points before U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d)
added 2 status points for a total of 13 criminal history points. The 2 points were added because he
was under a criminal justice sentence at the time of the instant offense. Applying Amendment 821,
the Defendant would receive 1 status point instead of 2, resulting in a total of 12 criminal history
points. A Defendant with 12 criminal history points falls within criminal history category V rather
than VI. At offense level 23 and criminal history category V, the Defendant’s advisory Sentencing
6
Case 1:17-cr-00050-DLH Document 65 Filed 09/11/24 Page 6 of 7

Guideline range would be 84-105 months.
The Government does not dispute this calculation and admits the Defendant is eligible for a
sentence reduction under Amendment 821. Still, the Government contends the Section 3553(a)
sentencing factors weigh against a reduction because the Defendant has had several disciplinary
offense while incarcerated. The Defendant maintains his disciplinary problems are non-violent, he
has taken responsibility for his actions, and he has already been punished for violating prison rules.
The Court concludes the Section 3553(a) factors do not weigh against a sentence reduction.
The offense in this case was a non-violent drug offense for which the Defendant accepted
responsibility. The Court sentenced him to 96-months of imprisonment. He has been in federal
custody for over 7 years. The Defendant has had a few non-violent disciplinary issues while
incarcerated but he has taken responsibility for them and has been punished for them through the
prison disciplinary system. Additional punishment is unwarranted. To his credit he has undertaken
rehabilitative efforts while incarcerated as well. Granting the Defendant’s motion under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) will not undermine the Section 3553(a) factors. The Court concludes a sentence
reduction is warranted.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence (Doc. No. 57) is
GRANTED. The Defendant's sentence is reduced from 96-months to 84-months of imprisonment.
All other provisions of the Court’s judgment (Doc. No. 53) remain unchanged.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 11th day of September, 2024.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
7
Case 1:17-cr-00050-DLH Document 65 Filed 09/11/24 Page 7 of 7