USA v. Miller et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	No. 24-89
KENNETH TURNER 	SECTION I
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Kenneth Turner’s (“Turner”) motion1 for a
sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The government filed a
response2 in opposition. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On October 9, 2024, Turner pleaded guilty to a one-count superseding bill of
information3 charging him with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute fentanyl and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.4 In the
factual basis supporting his guilty plea, Turner acknowledged that the overall scope
of the conspiracy involved 424.36 grams of substances containing fentanyl and 370.62
grams of substances containing methamphetamine.5 The Court sentenced Turner to
130 months of imprisonment and 4 years of supervised release.6
1 R. Doc. No. 82.
2 R. Doc. No. 84.
3 R. Doc. No. 40.
4 R. Doc. No. 78.
5 R. Doc. No. 47, at 6.
6 R. Doc. No. 78, at 2–3.
Case 2:24-cr-00089-LMA-EJD Document 85 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 5

2
On January 13, 2026, Turner moved to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.7 In his motion, Turner states that the
United States Sentencing Commission adopted amendments to the Drug Quantity
Table which “lower[ed] the base offense levels for the Methamphetamine offenses and
eliminate[d] the ‘ice’ enhancements.”8 Turner claims that these amendments became
effective on November 1, 2025, and were “made retroactive” by the Sentencing
Commission.9 Turner does not point to a specific amendment and, in fact, leaves that
information blank: “(Amendment 	).”10 Turner requests that this Court reduce his
sentence “to the low end of the new Sentencing Guidelines Range.”11
The 	government, in response, 	asserts 	that 	no such 	amendments 	to 	the
Sentencing 	Guidelines 	exist.12 Further, 	the 	government 	argues 	that 	any 	such
amendment would not be retroactive as “there is no such corresponding amendment
listed in section 1B1.10, as required for a sentence reduction.”13
II. 	LAW & ANALYSIS
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court may modify a term of imprisonment
“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.” Such modification may be made by the Court if “a reduction is
7 R. Doc. No. 82.
8 Id. at 1.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 2.
12 R. Doc. No. 84, at 2.
13 Id.
Case 2:24-cr-00089-LMA-EJD Document 85 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 5

3
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission”
and “after [the Court] consider[s] the factors set forth in section 3553(a).” § 3582(c)(2);
United States v. Callies, 424 F. App’x 266, 266–67 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Dillon v.
United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010)). Additionally, the Fifth Circuit has held that
Ҥ 3582(c)(2) 	applies 	only 	to 	Guideline 	amendments 	made 	retroactive 	by 	the
Sentencing Commission.” United States v. King, 729 F. App’x 346, 347 (5th Cir. 2018)
(citing Dillon, 560 U.S. at 824–26).
The relevant policy statement for motions made pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) is
U.S.S.G. §1B1.10, Dillon, 560 U.S. at 821, which lists the amendments made
retroactively applicable, see King, 729 F. App’x at 347. See also U.S.S.G. §1B1.10(d).
An “amendment is not applied retroactively unless the amendment is expressly listed
as retroactive” in §1B1.10. King, 729 F. App’x at 347.
Despite Turner’s contention to the contrary, it does not appear that the
Sentencing Commission has adopted any amendments to the Drug Quantity Table
related 	to 	lowering 	the 	base 	offense 	level 	for 	methamphetamine 	offenses 	or
eliminating 	“ice” 	enhancements. 	See 	generally 	Amendments 	to 	the 	Sentencing
Guidelines (effective Nov. 1, 2025).14 However, the Court notes that the Proposed
2026 Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines include proposed amendments to
U.S.S.G. §2D1.1, including the Drug Quantity Table at §2D1.1(c), which would
“address 	offenses 	involving 	‘Ice’ 	and 	the 	purity 	distinction 	between
14 Available at: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-
process/official-text-amendments/202505_Amendments.pdf.
Case 2:24-cr-00089-LMA-EJD Document 85 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 5

4
methamphetamine in ‘actual’ form and methamphetamine as part of a mixture.” See
Proposed 	2026 	Amendments 	to 	the 	Federal 	Sentencing 	Guidelines 	(published
December 2025),15 pp. 2–5; see also 90 Fed. Reg. 59662. The public comment period
for this set of proposed amendments closed on February 10, 2026. Id. at i; 90 Fed.
Reg. 59660.
These proposed amendments have not yet been adopted, and the Sentencing
Commission 	has 	not 	yet 	decided 	whether 	the 	proposed 	amendments 	will 	be
retroactively applicable. See 90 Fed. Reg. 59661 (seeking public comment with respect
to whether the proposed amendments should be applied retroactively and included in
§1B1.10(d)). Therefore, to the extent that Turner’s request for a reduction in his
sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) is based upon these proposed amendments, such a
request is premature. Cf. United States v. Johnson, No. 17-1569, 2023 WL 3991049,
at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2023) (holding that the defendant’s request that the court
consider a proposed amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines for purposes of his
compassionate release motion was “premature”); see also United States v. Garcia, 655
F.3d 426, 432 n. 7 (5th Cir. 2011) (suggesting that the Court lacks authority to reduce
a defendant’s sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) based on a proposed amendment
because a district court “does not have the authority to deviate from § 1B1.10”).
In so holding, the Court takes no position with respect to whether the
amendments, if adopted and made retroactive, entitle Turner to the reduction he
15 Available at: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-
process/reader-friendly-amendments/202512_rf-proposed.pdf.
Case 2:24-cr-00089-LMA-EJD Document 85 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 5

5
seeks. However, Turner is welcome to refile his motion if and when it becomes
appropriate to do so.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Turner’s motion for motion for sentence reduction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, February 19, 2026.
______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cr-00089-LMA-EJD Document 85 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 5