Motion by Carlos Smith for relief under Amendment 821 — USA v. Smith (Dkt. 66, N.D. Ill.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · No. 1:20-cr-00922 · Doc. 66 · 2024-05-07 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
 
) 
United States of America 
) 
 
 
) 
 
No. 
20 CR 922 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Judge Manish S. Shah 
Carlos Smith 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Motion for Reduced Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 
and United States Sentencing Guideline Amendment 821 
 
Defendant Carlos Smith, by the Federal Defender Program and its attorney, Erin K. 
DeGrand, moves this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); § 1B1.10 of the U.S. Sentencing 
Guidelines; and Guidelines Amendment 821 Part A (Status Points), for an order reducing his 
term of imprisonment from 48 months to 43 months, leaving all other aspects of the original 
judgment in place. The government agrees that Mr. Smith qualifies for relief under Amendment 
821; the only issue in dispute is whether a reduction is appropriate under § 3553(a). Because of 
the hardships placed on Mr. Smith’s family by his time in custody, Mr. Smith’s exemplary record 
in prison, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the Court should grant Mr. 
Smith’s request for a reduction under Amendment 821.  
I. Background 
On February 23, 2023, this Court sentenced Mr. Smith to a 48-month term of imprisonment 
for wire fraud and money laundering. Dkt. 57. Per the Bureau of Prisons website, Mr. Smith’s 
projected release date is August 2, 2026.  
II. Relevant Guideline Amendment 
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) grants this Court jurisdiction to reduce the term of a previously 
imposed sentence of incarceration for certain qualifying defendants: 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:440

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,…the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the 
factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent they are applicable, if such a 
reduction is consistent with applicable policy statement issued by the Sentencing 
Commission. 
 
18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(2). 
 
On April 27, 2023, the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved modifications to the criminal 
history calculation which may result in lowering the applicable guideline ranges for offenders. 
See U.S.S.G. App’x C, Amdt. 821. After further study, on August 24, 2023, the Commission 
determined that two parts of Amendment 821 shall apply retroactively: Part A (“Status Points 
under § 4A1.1”) and Part B, Subpart 1 (“Zero-Point Offenders”). See U.S.S.G. App’x C, Amdt. 
825. The Commission further directed that a court granting relief may not order the release of a 
defendant to occur any earlier than February 1, 2024. Id. 
In Part A to Amendment 821, the Sentencing Commission changed the calculation of 
criminal history points added for an individual under a criminal justice sentence at the time of his 
or her offense (hereinafter “status points”). The Commission created the new Guidelines 
§ 4A1.1(e), which eliminates the application of any status points for individuals with less than 
seven criminal history points counted under § 4A1.1(a)-(d), and provides for only one additional 
criminal history point for individuals who receive seven or more points under those same 
sections. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). 
The Sentencing Commission changed the application of status points after a comprehensive 
analysis of sentencing data. Based that analysis, it concluded that the pre-2023 Sentencing 
Guidelines overestimated the ability of status points to predict future recidivism. A June 2022 
report from the Commission concluded that the pre-2023 applications of status points only 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:441

3 
 
minimally improved the overall recidivism predictivity, increasing it by just 0.2 percent.1 In other 
words, despite the significant sentencing impacts that pre-2023 status points had on criminal 
history, they only improved the criminal history score’s successful prediction of rearrest for 15 
out of every 10,000 offenders. This conclusion is consistent with the Commission’s prior 
research on the topic.2 
In addition to a lack of additional predictive value, the Commission identified several other 
concerns that caused it to reconsider the scope and impact of status points: 
 other provisions of the Guidelines “separately account[] for consecutive 
punishment imposed upon revocations of supervised release, a likely occurrence 
if an offender was under a criminal justice sentence during the commission of 
another offense;” 
 
  the possibility “that an offender’s criminal history score would be independently 
increased as the result of additional time imposed as the result of a revocation of 
probation or supervised release for the offense that also results in the addition of 
status points;” and 
 
  the ability “to reflect and serve multiple purposes of sentencing, including the 
offender’s perceived lack of respect for the law, as reflected both in the offender’s 
overall criminal history and the fact that the offender has reoffended while under a 
criminal justice sentence” by keeping some version of status points for offenders 
in higher criminal history categories. 
 
U.S.S.G. App’x C, Amdt. 821 at 241. Ultimately the Commission utilized its expertise to 
conclude that accounting for status in a more targeted manner “builds upon its tradition of data-
driven evolution of the guidelines” and “continues to serve the broader purposes of sentencing.” 
The Commission subsequently made Part A of Amendment 821 retroactive because “the policy 
 
1 U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, “Revisiting Status Points” at 17 (June 2022). Available at www.ussc.gov. 
 
2 See U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, “A Comparison of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Criminal 
History Category and the U.S. Parole Commission Salient Factor Score” (2005). Available at 
www.ussc.gov.  
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:442

4 
 
reasons underlying prospective application of the amendment apply with equal force to 
individuals who are already sentenced.” U.S.S.G. App’x C, Amdt. 825.  
III. Application to Mr. Smith  
A. Mr. Smith is Eligible for a Reduction under Amendment 821.  
The Guidelines direct that a court considering whether and to what extent to reduce a 
defendant’s term of imprisonment, “shall determine the amended guideline range that would 
have been applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines…had been in effect 
at the time the defendant was sentenced.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1).  
At Mr. Smith’s sentencing hearing, the Court assigned him three criminal history points 
under § 4A1.1(a)-(d) and two status points, for a total of five criminal history points. Dkt. 58 
¶¶ 49–51 (Corrected PSR); Dkt. 60 (SOR). This placed Mr. Smith in Criminal History Category 
III. Id. Combined with his final adjusted offense level of 17, the Court determined Mr. Smith’s 
guideline range was 30-37 months. The Court imposed a sentence of 48 months, about 30 
percent above the top of the applicable guideline range.  
Because Mr. Smith only received three criminal history points under §4A1.1(a)-(d), 
application of the amendment results in him receiving zero status points. His new total of three 
criminal history points places him in Criminal History Category II, resulting in a reduced 
guideline range of 27-33 months’ imprisonment. Therefore, Mr. Smith is eligible for a reduction 
in sentence. Counsel consulted with the government regarding this request, and AUSA Heidi 
Manschreck reports that the government agrees that Mr. Smith qualifies for relief, but opposes a 
reduction in light of the § 3553(a) factors in Mr. Smith’s case.  
 
 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:443

5 
 
B. The Court Should Exercise Its Discretion to Grant Mr. Smith a Reduction.  
Having determined that Mr. Smith is eligible for relief, the only question remaining is 
whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant Mr. Smith’s request for a reduction. In 
determining whether Mr. Smith should receive a reduction, the Court must consider the 
applicable factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In considering the history 
and characteristics of the defendant, the Court may consider post-sentencing conduct of the 
defendant that occurred after imposition of the term of imprisonment. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, 
comment. (n.1(B)(iii)).  
Mr. Smith’s post-sentencing conduct supports a reduction. During his time in custody, Mr. 
Smith has enrolled in multiple programs. He completed three programs: Money Smart, Money 
Smart for Older Adults, and National Parenting Program, Phases I and II. See Ex. A, BOP 
Certificates. He is about halfway through an educational course on Diesel Mechanics, and he has 
successfully completed 360 hours of Introduction to Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Technology at Ivy 
Tech Community College. See id.; Ex. B, Inmate Education Data - Transcript. He has also placed 
himself on the waitlist for courses in Occupational Education and Anger Management. See Ex. 
C, Inmate History – Other. In addition, he has not had any disciplinary issues while in custody. 
See Ex. D, Inmate Discipline Data.  
Mr. Smith’s sentence has placed strain on his family. His absence has created financial 
difficulties, because the family relied on his VA pension as a source of income and those 
payments have been paused while he serves his sentence.3 Mr. Smith’s fiancée reports that 
 
3 See Incarcerated Veterans, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,  
https://www.benefits.va.gov/persona/veteran-
incarcerated.asp#:~:text=Veterans%20in%20receipt%20of%20VA,Veteran%20meets%20VA%20
eligibility%20requirements. (last accessed Mar. 20, 2024).  
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:444

6 
 
paying the bills has been difficult since Mr. Smith went into custody. Her 21-year-old daughter, 
whom Mr. Smith helped to raise, would like to attend college but has been unable to do so 
because the family needs her paycheck to help cover the bills.  
And the difficulties imposed by Mr. Smith’s absence are not merely financial: his family 
needs his caretaking skills. Mr. Smith’s 75-year-old mother suffers from kidney and liver disease, 
and she undergoes dialysis. Dkt. 58 ¶ 60. Mr. Smith was her caregiver before he went into 
custody. Id. Since Mr. Smith went into custody, his sister has been helping their mother, but Mr. 
Smith’s sister is working and also suffers from her own health issues. Mr. Smith’s fiancée reports 
that recently, Mr. Smith’s mother has been in and out of the hospital. She has struggled to eat and 
is weak.  
Mr. Smith is nearing 60. Upon his release, Mr. Smith’s priority is caring for his mother. He 
plans to live with her so that he can return to his role as her caregiver. He also looks forward to 
reuniting with his fiancée, whom he plans to marry once the case is behind him. In terms of 
employment, he plans to be semi-retired. His fiancée’s other daughter runs a trucking business, 
and he hopes to help her with the business, which is the reason he enrolled in the Diesel 
Mechanics course while in custody. 
Moreover, the fact that Mr. Smith received an above-guideline sentence should not be a 
barrier to a reduction here. Mr. Smith does not ask the Court to reduce the above-guideline 
portion of his sentence; he merely asks that the Court adjust his sentence so that it is properly 
anchored to the correct guideline calculation. If the Court, consistent with its sentence at the 
original sentencing hearing, imposes a sentence about 30 percent above the new advisory 
guideline range, that will result in a sentence of about 43 months, or a reduction of five months. 
According to the BOP website, Mr. Smith’s current release date is August 2, 2026. Based on this 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:445

7 
 
current release date, which accounts for good time credits, a reduction of five months would 
result in a new release date in or around March 2026. 
Such a reduction would appropriately avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among 
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct, while still 
reflecting the Court’s decision to adjust his sentence upward. Other similarly situated defendants 
who have already been sentenced are eligible for similar reductions, and defendants moving 
forward will approach their sentencings with lower guideline ranges than Mr. Smith did. 
Although he has not been in custody long, Mr. Smith has been a model inmate for that time, and 
he has pressing family needs awaiting him upon the completion of his sentence. The § 3553(a) 
factors present here, as well as Mr. Smith’s post-sentence conduct, favor a sentence reduction.   
IV. Conclusion 
Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons, Carlos Smith respectfully requests this Court reduce 
his term of imprisonment from 48 months to 43 months.4 All other aspects of the original 
sentence should remain unchanged.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Federal Defender Program 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
John F. Murphy, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Director 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By: 
s/ Erin K. DeGrand 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Erin K. DeGrand 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney for Defendant 
 
4 Should the Court grant Mr. Smith’s motion, Counsel sent a completed Form AO247 to the 
Court’s proposed order box for the Court’s convenience. 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:446

8 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
 
The undersigned, Erin K. DeGrand, an attorney with the Federal Defender Program 
hereby certifies that in accordance with FED.R.CRIM. P. 49, FED. R. CIV. P5, LR5.5, and the 
General Order on Electronic Case Filing (ECF), the following document(s): 
 
MOTION FOR REDUCED SENTENCE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(2) 
AND UNITED STATES SENTENCING GUIDELINE AMENDMENT 821 
 
was served pursuant to the district court’s ECF system as to ECF filings, if any, and were sent by 
first-class mail/hand delivery on May 7, 2024 to counsel/parties that are non-ECF filers. 
 
 
 
 
By: 
 /s/ Erin K. DeGrand                  
ERIN K. DEGRAND 
FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM 
55 E. Monroe St., Suite 2800 
Chicago, Illinois 60603 
(312) 621-2026 
 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:447

Exhibit A 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:448

Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:449

Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:450

Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:451

Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:452

Exhibit B 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:453

Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:454

Exhibit C 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:455

Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:456

Exhibit D 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:457

Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 66 Filed: 05/07/24 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:458

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ilnd.394355.66.0.pdf

Size

2,214,906 bytes

SHA-256

de7104377bab5d9535f4e3f700928b35e7b22f15503921b12d8ffd97aa0babea

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ilnd.394355.66.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)