USA v. Reed

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
EASTERN DIVISION
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
) 	REDUCE SENTENCE
vs. 	)
) 	Case No. 3:16-cr-151(1)
Chad Alan Reed, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
Defendant Chad Alan Reed moves for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
and Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Doc. 102. The United States
opposes the motion. Doc. 105. For the reasons below, the motion is denied.
In 2017, Reed pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy charges. Docs. 67, 68. The presentence
investigation report calculated his sentencing range as 151 to 188 months, based on a total offense
level of 29 and a criminal history category VI. Doc. 80. He had 19 criminal history points for past
convictions, plus an additional 2 status points under United States Sentencing Guideline §
4A1.1(d), for a total of 21 criminal history points. Id. But Reed also faced a statutory mandatory
20-year sentence. Id. He was sentenced to 108 months in prison, below the mandatory minimum.
Doc. 91.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2):
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 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.
Case 3:16-cr-00151-PDW Document 106 Filed 04/08/24 Page 1 of 3

2
This exception to the general rule that a court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has
been imposed “represents a congressional act of lenity intended to give prisoners the benefit of
later enacted adjustments to the judgments reflected in the Guidelines.” Dillon v. United States,
560 U.S. 817, 828 (2010). But the exception is limited; it “does not authorize a resentencing.” Id.
at 831. “It permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by the Commission.”
Id. In deciding whether to reduce a sentence based on a retroactive amendment to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court must first consider the scope of the
reduction authorized by the amendment and then consider whether such a reduction is warranted
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826.
Reed generally seeks a sentence reduction under Amendment 821, but he is ineligible for
relief. First, the record shows that Reed’s sentence was not “based on” the advisory guideline
range—it was based on the applicable mandatory minimum of 20 years and reduced from there to
108 months. The United States Supreme Court held in Koons v. United States that defendants
whose sentences were “based on their mandatory minimums and on their substantial assistance to
the Government” “do not qualify for sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2) because their
sentences were not ‘based on’ their lowered Guidelines ranges.” 138 S.Ct. at 1788. Per Koons, and
because Reed’s sentence was not “based on” a sentence range later lowered by the Sentencing
Commission, he is not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2).
Second, even if Reed was eligible for a reduction, Parts A and B of Amendment 821
provide no relief. Part A of Amendment 821 provides no relief because it does not lower his
sentencing range. This portion of Amendment 821 lowers the number of “status points” received
under United States Sentencing Guideline § 4A1.1 for individuals who commit their offense while
under a criminal justice sentence. Applying the new provision to Reed, he would receive 1 status
Case 3:16-cr-00151-PDW Document 106 Filed 04/08/24 Page 2 of 3

3
point instead of 2, reducing his total criminal history points from 21 to 20. But even with 20
criminal history points, Reed remains squarely within criminal history category VI. So, his
sentencing range is unaffected by the status point reduction, and Part A provides no relief.
As to Part B, this portion of Amendment 821 provides an offense level reduction for “zero-
point” offenders, who are offenders with no criminal history points. See U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a). Reed
received 21 scoreable criminal history points and is not a zero-point offender. So, he is not eligible
for a sentence reduction under Part B of Amendment 821.
After extensive review the entire record and the relevant legal authority, Reed’s motion to
reduce sentence (Doc. 102) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 8th day of April, 2024.
/s/ Peter D. Welte
Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:16-cr-00151-PDW Document 106 Filed 04/08/24 Page 3 of 3