USA v. Wofford

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DERRIOS EUGENE WOFFORD
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:22-cr-122
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger
MEMORANDUM
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction Under Guideline
Amendment 821, Part A. (Doc. 36). Defendant supplemented his motion (Doc. 45), and the
United States (“the Government”) responded in opposition (Docs. 44, 46). For the reasons stated
below, Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction (Doc. 36) will be DENIED.
On October 25, 2022, an Indictment charged Defendant with one count of being a felon
in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), one count of possessing with
intent to distribute forty or more grams of fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(B), and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. 1, at 1–2.)
Prior to sentencing, the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) indicated Defendant's
prior criminal convictions resulted in a total criminal history score of five, for a criminal history
category of III, and a guideline range of 57 to 71 months. (Doc. 28, at ¶¶ 52, 74.) Yet, because
the minimum term of imprisonment for his drug charge was sixty months, his guidelines range
was 60 to 71 months. (Id. at ¶ 74.) At sentencing, the Court applied an upward variance of
thirteen months and sentenced Defendant to 84 months. (Docs. 34, 35.)
Case 1:22-cr-00122-TRM-CHS Document 47 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
A district court has “no inherent authority … to modify an otherwise valid sentence.”
United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693, 700 (6th Cir. 2009). “A district court may modify a
defendant’s sentence only as provided by statute.” United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419, 421
(6th Cir. 2009). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) provides:
“in 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 . . . the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after
considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] 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).
Amendment 821, which took effect on November 1, 2023, altered the application of the
guidelines with respect to offenders who earned criminal history “status” points based on the
commission of an offense while serving a criminal justice sentence. Amendment 821 reduced
status points from two to one if the defendant received seven or more points under USSG §
4A1.1(a)–(d) and eliminated them otherwise. See USSG. §§ 4A1.1(e).
Applying this amendment to the case at hand, Defendant’s criminal history points would
be reduced to three and his criminal history category would be reduced to II. Defendant asks the
Court to reduce his sentence to 76 months so that it correlates to the upward variance applied in
his original sentence. (Doc. 45 at 4.) In response, the Government argues the Court does not
have authority to reduce Defendant’s sentence because “his guideline range has not been
‘lowered’ by Amendment 821” since the sixty-month statutory mandatory minimum applies.
(Doc. 46 at 2.) It states that “[a]t best, [Defendant] can show that the guideline range applicable
to him today is different; it is not lower.” (Id. (citing United States v. Taylor, 749 F.3d 541, 545
(6th Cir. 2014) (“[A] change in the upper bound of [an] ‘applicable guideline range’ does not
lower that range . . . [where the bottom of the range is a] statutory minimum, i.e., the lower
Case 1:22-cr-00122-TRM-CHS Document 47 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
bound that was not reduced.”)).)
The Government is correct. Applying Amendment 821 would reduce Defendant’s
criminal history category from III to II. However,
a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not authorized under [ ] §
3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with [the applicable] policy statement if [the
amendment relied upon by the defendant in seeking a reduction] does not have the
effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the
operation of another . . . statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum
term of imprisonment).
USSG § 1B1.10(a) cmt n.1(B)(iii). Because Defendant was sentenced pursuant to a statutory
mandatory minimum and not a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the
Sentencing Commission, this Court does not have authority to reduce his sentence under
Amendment 821. See id; see also United States v. Gallaher, No.: 3:21-cr-112, 2024 WL
3884198, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 20, 2024) (finding the court lacked authority to reduce a
mandatory minimum sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821); United States v.
Corthion, No. 1:15-CR-10022, 2024 WL 4683671, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 5, 2024) (finding
same).
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction (Doc. 36) will
be DENIED.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:22-cr-00122-TRM-CHS Document 47 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>