USA v. Adams et al

- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Mark Anthony Slaughter, a/k/a Nick,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:20-cr-00068
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
[¶1] 	THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion to Reduce Sentence filed by the
Defendant Mark Anthony Slaughter (“Slaughter”) on March 12, 2024. Doc. No. 1709. The Federal
Public Defender’s Office was appointed to represent Slaughter. Defense Counsel filed a Notice of
Intent Not to Supplement Slaughter’s Motion on March 15, 2024. Doc. No. 1710. The United
States filed a Response on April 9, 2024. Doc. No. 1738. Slaughter did not file a Reply. For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
[¶2] 	Slaughter seeks a reduction of his sentence based upon Amendment 821 to the United
States Sentencing Guidelines which went into effect on November 1, 2023. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), a defendant may seek a sentence reduction if he has “been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission[.]”
[¶3] 	In Part A to Amendment 821, the United States Sentencing Commission made changes to
the “status points” provision which are criminal history points added when the defendant
committed the instant offense while under another criminal justice sentence. However, Slaughter
was never assessed any status points under USSG § 4A1.1. See Doc. No. 1411, ¶¶ 37-38.
Case 1:20-cr-00068-DMT Document 1740 Filed 04/23/24 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
Therefore, Part A to Amendment 821 would not affect Slaughter’s criminal history category and
his guideline range remains the same.
[¶4] In Part B, Subpart 1 to Amendment 821, the Sentencing Commission created a two-level
reduction in the total offense level for defendants receiving zero criminal history points and whose
offense did not involve certain criteria. Ordinarily, this change would apply the Slaughter because
he received zero criminal history points. Doc. No. 1411, ¶¶ 37-38. The two-level reduction would
result in a total offense level of 25, criminal history category of I, and an amended guideline range
of 57 to 71 months.
[¶5] However, a sentence reduction is inconsistent with the Policy Statement (U.S.S.G. §
1B1.10) because Slaughter’s original sentence of 54 months is below the amended guideline range,
and he did not provide substantial assistance. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[e]xcept as
provided in subdivision (B) [related to substantial assistance], 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.”). Accordingly, a sentence reduction based on Part B of Amendment 821 is
unavailable to Slaughter.
[¶6] For the foregoing reasons, Slaughter is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, Slaughter’s Motion (Doc. No. 1709) is DENIED.
[¶7] 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED April 23, 2024.
Daniel M. Traynor, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:20-cr-00068-DMT Document 1740 Filed 04/23/24 Page 2 of 2