USA v. Yellow Hammer

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Paul Anthony Yellow Hammer,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:22-cr-00225
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
[¶1] 	THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion to Reduce Sentence filed by the
Defendant on January 21, 2026. Doc. No. 72. The United States filed a Response on January 28,
2026. This is Defendant’s fourth Motion to Reduce Sentence. Doc. Nos. 52, 55, 57. The Court
denied his previous motions. Doc. Nos. 61, 62.
[¶2] 	After a defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies1 and the Court has considered
the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), courts may reduce a sentence if “extraordinary and compelling
reasons warrant such a reduction” to the extent “that such a reduction is consistent with applicable
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Defendants bear the burden of proving a sentencing reduction is warranted. United States v. Avalos
Banderas, 39 F.4th 1059, 1062 (8th Cir. 2022). The relevant policy statement is found at U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13.
[¶3] 	As for the circumstances articulated by the Defendant, he argues the Court should reduce
his sentence because he has enrolled in the RU Program. Standing alone, however, enrollment in
1 The United States agrees he has exhausted his administrative remedies. Doc. No. 73, pp. 1–3.
Case 1:22-cr-00225-DMT Document 75 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 2

programming aimed at rehabilitation is not an extraordinary and compelling circumstance under
the policy statement. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d) (“[R]ehabilitation of the defendant while serving
the sentence may be considered in combination with other circumstances in determining whether
and to what extent a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is warranted.”).
[¶4] 	Furthermore, the Court concluded at sentencing a 120-month term of imprisonment was
appropriate after a thorough consideration of factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because it
reflected the seriousness of the offense, promoted respect for the law, and provided just
punishment for his actions. Nothing in the record changes the Court’s conclusion as to the
Defendant’s sentence.
[¶5] 	Accordingly, because the Defendant has failed to prove any extraordinary and compelling
circumstances justify a sentencing reduction, his Motion to Reduce Sentence is DENIED.
[¶6] 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED April 1, 2026.
Daniel M. Traynor, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:22-cr-00225-DMT Document 75 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 2