USA v. Mason

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, )
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
) MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
vs. )
)
Kelly Shayne Mason, ) Case No. 3:18-cr-140
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Defendant’s pro se motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. §§
3582(c)(2) and 3582(c)(1)(A), filed on March 4, 2024. See Doc. No. 117. The Government filed a
response in opposition to the motion on April 10, 2024. See Doc. No. 122. For the reasons set forth
below, the motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 15, 2018, Mason was charged by way of indictment with three (3) counts of
aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c) and 1153. See Doc. No. 1. On
September 19, 2019, Mason pled guilty to all counts pursuant to a written plea agreement. See Doc.
No. 75. The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) calculated a total offense level of 43. See
Doc. No. 87, ¶40. Mason had 3 scorable criminal history points, which placed him in criminal history
category II. See Doc. No. 87, ¶ 54. This resulted in a advisory Sentencing Guideline range of life.
See Doc. No. 87, ¶ 71. He also faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 360 months. See Doc. No.
87, ¶ 70. The Court adopted this calculation at sentencing. See Doc. No. 95. On February 21, 2020,
the Court sentenced Mason to 480 months imprisonment. See Doc. No. 94. Mason appealed. See
Doc. No. 96. On September 22, 2020,the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals “found no non-frivolous
1
Case 3:18-cr-00140-DLH Document 124 Filed 06/24/24 Page 1 of 13

issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver,” and dismissed the appeal. See Doc. No. 102-1.
On March 4, 2024, the Defendant filed a pro se motion seeking a sentence reduction under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 contending he was a zero-point offender under Part B of
Amendment 821 and thus he should receive a sentence reduction. See Doc. No. 117. The Defendant
also seeks compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). Id. The Government filed a
response in opposition to the motion contending zero point offender and compassionate release is not
warranted. See Doc. No. 122. The Defendant is serving his sentence at FCI Greenville in Greenville,
Illinois. He has a presumptive release date of February 5, 2053.
II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
A. Amendment 821
Under the federal sentencing scheme, sentence modifications are available under very limited
circumstances. One circumstance in which a sentence reduction is permitted is when the applicable
Sentencing Guideline range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission and it makes the
amendment retroactive. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) of Title 18 of the United
States Code provides as follows:
[I]n 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.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
The applicable Sentencing Commission policy statement provides as follows:
(a) AUTHORITY.--
2
Case 3:18-cr-00140-DLH Document 124 Filed 06/24/24 Page 2 of 13

(1) IN GENERAL.--In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of
imprisonment, and the guideline range applicable to that defendant has
subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the
Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (d) below, the court may reduce
the defendant's term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), any such reduction
in the defendant's term of imprisonment shall be consistent with this
policy statement.
(2) EXCLUSIONS.--A reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment
is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not
authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if–
(A) none of the amendments listed in subsection (d) is applicable
to the defendant; or
(B) an amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have the effect
of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.
(3) LIMITATION.--Consistent with subsection (b), proceedings under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement do not constitute a full
resentencing of the defendant.
(b) DETERMINATION OF REDUCTION IN TERM OF IMPRISONMENT.--
(1) IN GENERAL--In determining whether, and to what extent, a
reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) and this policy statement is warranted, the court shall
determine the amended guideline range that would have been
applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines listed
in subsection (d) had been in effect at the time the defendant was
sentenced. In making such determination, the court shall substitute
only the amendments listed in subsection (d) for the corresponding
guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was
sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions
unaffected.
(2) LIMITATION AND PROHIBITION ON EXTENT OF
REDUCTION.--
(A) LIMITATION.--Except as provided in subdivision (B), 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.
3
Case 3:18-cr-00140-DLH Document 124 Filed 06/24/24 Page 3 of 13

(B) EXCEPTION FOR SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE.--If the
term of imprisonment imposed was less than the term of
imprisonment provided by the guideline range applicable to the
defendant at the time of sentencing pursuant to a government
motion to reflect the defendant's substantial assistance to
authorities, a reduction comparably less than the amended
guideline range determined under subdivision (1) of this
subsection may be appropriate.
(C) PROHIBITION.--In no event may the reduced term of
imprisonment be less than the term of imprisonment the
defendant has already served.
(c) CASES INVOLVING MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES AND
SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE.--If the case involves a statutorily required
minimum sentence and the court had the authority to impose a sentence below
the statutorily required minimum sentence pursuant to a government motion
to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities, then for purposes
of this policy statement the amended guideline range shall be determined
without regard to the operation of § 5G1.1 (Sentencing on a Single Count of
Conviction) and § 5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction).
(d) COVERED AMENDMENTS.--Amendments covered by this policy statement
are listed in Appendix C as follows: 126, 130, 156, 176, 269, 329, 341, 371,
379, 380, 433, 454, 461, 484, 488, 490, 499, 505, 506, 516, 591, 599, 606, 657,
702, 706 as amended by 711, 715, 750 (parts A and C only), 782 (subject to
subsection (e)(1)), and 821 (parts A and B, subpart 1 only and subject to
subsection (e)(2)).
(e) SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS.--
(1) The court shall not order a reduced term of imprisonment based on
Amendment 782 unless the effective date of the court's order is
November 1, 2015, or later.
(2) The court shall not order a reduced term of imprisonment based on Part
A or Part B, Subpart 1 of Amendment 821 unless the effective date of
the court's order is February 1, 2024, or later.
U.S.S.G. 1B1.10.
In Dillon v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed the process for application of a
retroactive guideline amendment, emphasizing that Section 1B1.10 is binding. 560 U.S. 817 (2010).
4
Case 3:18-cr-00140-DLH Document 124 Filed 06/24/24 Page 4 of 13

The Supreme Court instructed that “[a]ny reduction must be consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission” and Section 1B1.10 instructs the district court to
“substitute the amended Guidelines range while leav[ing] all other guideline application decisions
unaffected.” Id. at 821 (internal quotations omitted). The Supreme Court set forth a two-step
approach to apply:
At step one, § 3582(c)(2) requires the court to follow the Commission’s instructions
in §1B1.10 to determine the prisoner’s eligibility for a sentence modification and the
extent of the reduction authorized. Specifically, §1B1.10(b)(1) requires the court to
begin by “determin[ing] the amended guideline range that would have been applicable
to the defendant” had the relevant amendment been in effect at the time of the initial
sentencing. “In making such determination, the court shall substitute only the
amendments listed in subsection (c) for the corresponding guideline provisions that
were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline
application decisions
unaffected.” § 1B1.10(b)(1).
Consistent with the limited nature of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, §1B1.10(b)(2) also
confines the extent of the reduction authorized. Courts generally may “not reduce the
defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . to a term that is
less than the minimum of the amended guideline range” produced by the substitution.
§1B1.10(b)(2)(A). Only if the sentencing court originally imposed a term of
imprisonment below the Guidelines range does § 1B1.10 authorize a court proceeding
under § 3582(c)(2) to impose a term “comparably” below the amended range. §
1B1.10(b)(2)(B).
At step two of the inquiry, § 3582(c)(2) instructs a court to consider any applicable §
3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by
reference to the policies relevant at step one is warranted in whole or in part under the
particular circumstances of the case. Because reference to § 3553(a) is appropriate
only at the second step of this circumscribed inquiry, it cannot serve to transform the
proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) into plenary resentencing proceedings.
Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827
On November 1, 2023, Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines took
effect, pursuant to the Sentencing Commission’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 994(o). The amendment
applies retroactively. Amendment 821 has three parts and several subparts: Part A pertains to “Status
5
Case 3:18-cr-00140-DLH Document 124 Filed 06/24/24 Page 5 of 13

Points;” Part B pertains to “Zero-Point Offenders;” and Part C pertains to “Simple Possession of
Marihuana Offenses.”
In Part B Subpart 1 of Amendment 821to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the United
States Sentencing Commission added what now appears in Section 4C1.1, providing a 2- offense-level
reduction for certain offenders who have zero criminal history points. The new provision provides
as follows:
Adjustment for Certain Zero-Point Offenders
(a) ADJUSTMENT.—If the defendant meets all of the following criteria:
(1) the defendant did not receive any criminal history points from Chapter
Four, Part A;
(2) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3A1.4 (Terrorism);
(3) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence in
connection with the offense;
(4) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury;
(5) the instant offense of conviction is not a sex offense;
(6) the defendant did not personally cause substantial financial hardship;
(7) the defendant did not possess, receive, purchase, transport, transfer,
sell, or otherwise dispose of a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or
induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense;
(8) the instant offense of conviction is not covered by §2H1.1 (Offenses
Involving Individual Rights);
(9) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3A1.1 (Hate Crime
Motivation or Vulnerable Victim) or §3A1.5 (Serious Human Rights
Offense); and
(10) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3B1.1
(Aggravating Role) and was not engaged in a continuing criminal
enterprise, as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 848;
6
Case 3:18-cr-00140-DLH Document 124 Filed 06/24/24 Page 6 of 13

decrease the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three by 2
levels
U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1.
There is no right to counsel in Section 3582(c) proceedings. United States v. Brown, 565 F.3d
1093, 1094 (8th Cir. 2009). Nor is there a right to a hearing. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827-28
(observing that, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(b)(4), a defendant need not be present
at a proceeding under Section 3582(c)(2) regarding the imposition of a sentencing modification).
In this case, the Defendant does not qualify for a sentence reduction under Part B of
Amendment 821. To qualify for a 2-level offense level reduction, a defendant with zero criminal
history points must satisfy all ten of the qualifying criteria listed in U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. The Defendant
had 3 criminal history points which placed him in criminal history category II. In addition, his
offenses were both sex offenses which are excluded under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. (A)(5). Thus, Mason
cannot be considered a zero-point offender and Part B of Amendment 821 offers him no relief.
B. Compassionate Release
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) allows the Court to modify a term of imprisonment under two
circumstances: by motion of the Director of the BOP or upon motion of the Defendant “after the
defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to
bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by
the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier.” In this case, it is undisputed the
Defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies.
In considering a motion to reduce sentence, the Court must assess whether, after considering
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, “extraordinary and compelling reasons” exist which warrant a
7
Case 3:18-cr-00140-DLH Document 124 Filed 06/24/24 Page 7 of 13

sentence reduction, and if a sentence reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s
applicable policy statement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). There is no right to counsel in Section
3582(c) proceedings. United States v. Brown, 565 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th Cir. 2009). Nor is there a
right to a hearing. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827-28 (2010) (observing that, under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(b)(4), a defendant need not be present at a proceeding under
Section 3582(c)(2) regarding the imposition of a sentencing modification).
Prior to the passage of the First Step Act in 2018, district courts could only grant
compassionate release sentence reductions based upon a motion filed by the director of the BOP.
Such motions were rarely filed. This all changed when the First Step Act was signed into law on
December 21, 2018. The relevant portion of the new law now reads as follows:
(c) Modification of an imposed term of imprisonment.--The court may not modify
a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that–
(1) in any case–
(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon
motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all
administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a
motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of
such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier,
may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or
supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the
unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the
factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it
finds that–
(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction;
and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission;
18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis added).
The First Step Act does not define “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” The applicable
8
Case 3:18-cr-00140-DLH Document 124 Filed 06/24/24 Page 8 of 13

Sentencing Commission policy statement can be found at Section 1B1.13 of the 2023 Sentencing
Guidelines Manual. Section 1B1.13 provides as follows:
(a) In General.--Upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons or the
defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the court may reduce a term of
imprisonment (and may impose a term of supervised release with or without
conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of
imprisonment) if, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the
extent that they are applicable, the court determines that–
(1) (A) Extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction; or
(B) The defendant (i) is at least 70 years old; and (ii) has served at least
30 years in prison pursuant to a sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. §
3559(c) for the offense or offenses for which the defendant is
imprisoned;
(2) The defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the
community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); and
(3) The reduction is consistent with this policy statement.
(b) Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.--Extraordinary and compelling reasons
exist under any of the following circumstances or a combination thereof:
(1) Medical Circumstances of the Defendant.--
(A) The defendant is suffering from a terminal illness (i.e., a serious
and advanced illness with an end-of-life trajectory). A specific
prognosis of life expectancy (i.e., a probability of death within a
specific time period) is not required. Examples include metastatic
solid-tumor cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), end-stage
organ disease, and advanced dementia.
(B) The defendant is–
(i) suffering from a serious physical or medical condition,
(ii) suffering from a serious functional or cognitive
impairment, or
(iii) experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health
because of the aging process,
9
Case 3:18-cr-00140-DLH Document 124 Filed 06/24/24 Page 9 of 13

that substantially diminishes the ability of the
defendant to provide self-care within the environment
of a correctional facility and from which he or she is
not expected to recover.
(C) The defendant is suffering from a medical condition that requires
long-term or specialized medical care that is not being provided and
without which the defendant is at risk of serious deterioration in health
or death.
(D) The defendant presents the following circumstances–
(i) the defendant is housed at a correctional facility affected or
at imminent risk of being affected by (I) an ongoing outbreak
of infectious disease, or (II) an ongoing public health
emergency declared by the appropriate federal, state, or local
authority;
(ii) due to personal health risk factors and custodial status, the
defendant is at increased risk of suffering severe medical
complications or death as a result of exposure to the ongoing
outbreak of infectious disease or the ongoing public health
emergency described in clause (i); and
(iii) such risk cannot be adequately mitigated in a timely
manner.
(2) Age of the Defendant.--The defendant (A) is at least 65 years old; (B) is
experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the
aging process; and (C) has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or her
term of imprisonment, whichever is less.
(3) Family Circumstances of the Defendant.--
(A) The death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant's
minor child or the defendant's child who is 18 years of age or older and
incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability or a
medical condition.
(B) The incapacitation of the defendant's spouse or registered partner
when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for the
spouse or registered partner.
(C) The incapacitation of the defendant's parent when the defendant
would be the only available caregiver for the parent.
10
Case 3:18-cr-00140-DLH Document 124 Filed 06/24/24 Page 10 of 13

(D) The defendant establishes that circumstances similar to those listed
in paragraphs (3)(A) through (3)(C) exist involving any other
immediate family member or an individual whose relationship with the
defendant is similar in kind to that of an immediate family member,
when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for such
family member or individual. For purposes of this provision,
‘immediate family member’ refers to any of the individuals listed in
paragraphs (3)(A) through (3)(C) as well as a grandchild, grandparent,
or sibling of the defendant.
(4) Victim of Abuse.--The defendant, while in custody serving the term of
imprisonment sought to be reduced, was a victim of:
(A) sexual abuse involving a “sexual act,” as defined in 18 U.S.C.
2246(2) (including the conduct described in 18 U.S.C. 2246(2)(D)
regardless of the age of the victim); or
(B) physical abuse resulting in “serious bodily injury,” as defined in
the Commentary to § 1B1.1 (Application Instructions);
that was committed by, or at the direction of, a correctional officer, an
employee or contractor of the Bureau of Prisons, or any other individual who
had custody or control over the defendant.
For purposes of this provision, the misconduct must be established by a
conviction in a criminal case, a finding or admission of liability in a civil case,
or a finding in an administrative proceeding, unless such proceedings are
unduly delayed or the defendant is in imminent danger.
(5) Other Reasons.--The defendant presents any other circumstance or
combination of circumstances that, when considered by themselves or together
with any of the reasons described in paragraphs (1) through (4), are similar in
gravity to those described in paragraphs (1) through (4).
(6) Unusually Long Sentence.--If a defendant received an unusually long
sentence and has served at least 10 years of the term of imprisonment, a
change in the law (other than an amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has
not been made retroactive) may be considered in determining whether the
defendant presents an extraordinary and compelling reason, but only where
such change would produce a gross disparity between the sentence being
served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the motion is filed,
and after full consideration of the defendant's individualized circumstances.
(c) Limitation on Changes in Law.--Except as provided in subsection (b)(6), a
change in the law (including an amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not
11
Case 3:18-cr-00140-DLH Document 124 Filed 06/24/24 Page 11 of 13

been made retroactive) shall not be considered for purposes of determining whether
an extraordinary and compelling reason exists under this policy statement. However,
if a defendant otherwise establishes that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant
a sentence reduction under this policy statement, a change in the law (including an
amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not been made retroactive) may be
considered for purposes of determining the extent of any such reduction.
(d) Rehabilitation of the Defendant.--Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(t), rehabilitation of
the defendant is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason for purposes of
this policy statement. However, rehabilitation 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.
(e) Foreseeability of Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.--For purposes of this
policy statement, an extraordinary and compelling reason need not have been
unforeseen at the time of sentencing in order to warrant a reduction in the term of
imprisonment. Therefore, the fact that an extraordinary and compelling reason
reasonably could have been known or anticipated by the sentencing court does not
preclude consideration for a reduction under this policy statement.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
Even when extraordinary and compelling reasons exist, a court should only grant a motion for
release if it determines that the defendant is not a danger to the public. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2).
A court should also consider whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of release. See
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Whether to grant relief under Section 3582(c)(1)(A)
is vested in the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Vangh, 990 F.3d 1138, 1140
(8th Cir. 2021).
Mason contends his 480-month sentence is unusually long and asks that it be reduced to 360-
months. The Government maintains Mason has not articulated a valid basis for a finding that
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” justify a sentence reduction. The Court agrees with the
Government. The unusually long sentence provision only come into play after a defendant has served
at least 10 years of his sentence and a change in the law has produced a gross sentencing disparity.
12
Case 3:18-cr-00140-DLH Document 124 Filed 06/24/24 Page 12 of 13

See U.S.S.G. § 1B.13(b)(6). Mason has not served 10 years in prison and fails to explain what change
in the law has resulted in a gross sentencing disparity. The Court sentenced Mason to 480-months
imprisonment. The advisory Sentencing Guideline range was life so the actual sentence was below
the applicable Sentencing Guideline range.
In addition, the Court concludes the Section 3553(a) factors strongly weigh against any
sentence reduction. The offense conduct in this case was egregious. Mason was involved in the
violent sexual abuse of three girls under the age of twelve over a number of years. The Court
considers Mason a danger to the community. The advisory Sentencing Guideline range was life. The
Court sentenced him to 480-months of imprisonment. Mason has also had disciplinary problems
while incarcerated. See Doc. No. 122-1. The need for the sentence imposed under Section
3553(a)(2)(A)-(C) still remains given the nature of the offense. Granting the Defendant’s motion
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) would undermine the Section 3553(a) factors.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence (Doc. No. 117) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24th day of June, 2024.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
13
Case 3:18-cr-00140-DLH Document 124 Filed 06/24/24 Page 13 of 13