Supplement - Amendment 821 to 77 Motion to Reduce Sentence — USA v. Thomas (Dkt. 81, E.D. Tenn.)

Record facts

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
AT GREENEVILLE 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
  ) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  ) 
               Plaintiff,  
 
  ) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  ) 
 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
  ) 
Case No. 2:22-cr-00076 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  )    Judge Greer 
CHAD BRANDON THOMAS, 
        ) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  ) 
               Defendant. 
        ) 
 
 
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER 
GUIDELINE AMENDMENT 821, PART B 
 
Chad Thomas, through undersigned counsel, and under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), 
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, and Guideline Amendment 821, Part B, respectfully files this 
supplement to his pro se motion for a reduced term of imprisonment. (Doc. 77.) Mr. 
Thomas requests a reduced term of 32 months, a point within the amended guideline 
range comparable to his original within-range sentence. Because it would move his 
release date forward to make him immediately eligible for transfer to a halfway 
house, he respectfully asks the Court to expedite its ruling on this motion.   
 
A. 
Legal background 
This Court may reduce a term of imprisonment, consistent with the policy 
statement at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, for an individual who “has been sentenced to a term 
of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by 
the Sentencing Commission,” and the Commission has designated the relevant 
ameliorating change as retroactive. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).  

2 
 
Effective November 1, 2023, the Sentencing Commission created a new 
guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 (Adjustment for Certain Zero Point Offenders), providing 
a decrease of two levels from the offense level determined under Chapters Two and 
Three for “zero-point” offenders who meet “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. 
U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a); see also U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 821 (Part B). The Sentencing 
Commission designated Part B of Amendment 821 as retroactively applicable. 
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d).  

3 
 
When determining whether to grant a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), 
a court must first “determine the amended guideline range that would have been 
applicable to the defendant had the relevant amendment [and all other applicable 
retroactive amendments listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d)] been in effect at the time of 
the initial sentencing,” then “consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine 
whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized [by the amended guidelines 
range] is warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the 
case.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010). Aside from applying the 
relevant part of Amendment 821, the Court “shall leave all other guideline 
application decisions unaffected.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1); see also id. § 1B1.10(a)(3) 
(“[P]roceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement do not 
constitute a full resentencing.”).  
 
B. 
Relevant facts 
Mr. Thomas pled guilty to one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
§ 1343 for conduct related to three Payroll Protection Program loans he obtained in 
2020. (Judgment, Doc. 75.) At sentencing, held on August 21, 2023, the Court 
calculated the advisory guideline range as 37 to 46 months, based on a total offense 
level of 21 and criminal history category of I. (Sealed Statement of Reasons, Doc. 76.) 
This range was higher than the range in the PSR (calculated there as 33 to 41 months 
based on a total offense level of 20 (see Sealed Presentence Report [“PSR”] ¶¶ 47, 48, 
97, R. 29)), because the government ultimately declined to move for the third level off 
for acceptance of responsibility. (Sent’g Tr. at 4-5, 27-28, R. 79.) As it had in its 

4 
 
sentencing memorandum, the government sought a sentence at the top of the lower 
range as calculated in the PSR (41 months), which fell toward the middle of the range 
calculated at sentencing. (See id. at 6.) The Court ultimately sentenced Mr. Thomas 
to 40 months in prison, three months above the bottom of the applicable guideline 
range and one month less than the government’s requested sentence. (Judgment, Doc. 
75.) In the process, the Court agreed with the government that the guideline range 
itself accounts by way of enhancements for most of the aggravating factors in his case 
(adding 14 offense levels), indicating that the higher point it chose within that 
aggravated range was meant to account for its § 3553(a) considerations. (Sent’g Tr. 
at 37, 39-40.) At the same time, the Court disclaimed that the § 3553(a) factors 
supported a sentence at the top of the range. (Id. at 39.) 
The Court also acknowledged that the Sentencing Commission had recently 
voted to promulgate the 2-level reduction for zero-point offenders like Mr. Thomas 
(which would lower his final offense level to 19 and his range to 30 to 37 months) and 
that the Commission was considering making the amendment retroactive, but also 
that the amendment had not yet gone into effect. (Sent’g Tr. at 30, 32.) The Court 
decided that rather than prospectively grant Mr. Thomas a variance to reflect the 
likely amended range, it preferred to hold off until the changes were in effect and 
made retroactive. It suggested to Mr. Thomas that if the Commission were to make 
the zero-point amendment retroactive, he could then move for a reduction and the 
Court could exercise its discretion at that later time to decide whether and to what 

5 
 
extent it should grant a reduction, after it had an opportunity “to see how things 
progress from now until then.” (Sent’g Tr. at 32.)  
Mr. Thomas is expected to complete his sentence in July 2025. Inmate Locator, 
Federal Bureau of Prisons, available at https://www.bop.gov/ inmateloc/ (accessed 
February 8, 2024).  
C. 
Mr. Thomas is eligible for a reduction.  
As established, Mr. Thomas is a “zero-point offender” who also meets the other 
criteria set forth in U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 and is thus eligible for a two-level downward 
adjustment. (See PSR ¶ 57; Sent’g Tr. at 32.) Under Part B of Amendment 821, Mr. 
Thomas’s amended guideline range is 30 to 37 months. He is therefore eligible for a 
reduction in his sentence to 30 months, the bottom of the amended range. See 
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A).  
 
D. 
This Court should exercise it discretion to reduce Mr. Thomas’s 
 
 
term of imprisonment to 32 months. 
 
 
Mr. Thomas humbly asks this Court to exercise its discretion to reduce his 
sentence to 32 months, a sentence within but not at the bottom of the amended range. 
The 40-month sentence the Court originally imposed fell approximately eight percent 
above the bottom of the then-applicable range of 37 to 46 months, meant to account 
for the § 3553(a) factors not already captured by the applicable enhancements under 
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1. A reduced sentence of 32 months would reflect a comparable 
position of eight percent above the bottom of the amended range of 30 to 37 months. 
It is also one month below the top of the range that would apply under Amendment 
821 if the government had moved for the third point for acceptance (27 to 33 months 

6 
 
based on offense level 18, CHC I), so is comparable to the government’s requested 
sentence. Because it is comparably placed within the amended range, a 32-month 
sentence still accounts for the enhancements under § 2B1.1 for aggravating factors 
as well as the Court’s § 3553(a) considerations. A sentence within the amended range 
of 30 to 37 months also best achieves the goal of avoiding unwarranted disparities 
with offenders with zero criminal history points, like Mr. Thomas—a goal the Court 
particularly emphasized at sentencing. (Sent’g Tr. at 29 (explaining why “imposing a 
sentence within a properly calculated advisory guideline range promotes” the need to 
“achieve uniformity in sentencing”).)   
Perhaps most important, while in custody Mr. Thomas has endeavored to make 
real progress toward rehabilitation, as the Court encouraged him to do. (Id. at 40.) 
He reports that he completed drug education programming in January and is on the 
waiting list for two other classes. And he has incurred zero disciplinary infractions. 
(See Inmate Disciplinary Data, attached.)  
 
Conclusion 
Based on the above, Mr. Thomas respectfully asks this Court to exercise its 
discretion under § 3582(c)(2), § 1B1.10, and Part B of Amendment 821 and reduce his 
sentence to 32 months’ imprisonment. 
 
 
 

7 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
FEDERAL DEFENDER SERVICES    
  OF EASTERN TENNESSEE, INC. 
 
By: /s/ Jennifer Niles Coffin 
Jennifer Niles Coffin 
Tennessee Bar No. 020703 
Assistant Federal Defender 
800 South Gay St., Suite 2400 
Knoxville, Tennessee 37929 
(865) 637.7979

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.tned.105535.81.0.pdf

Size

94,562 bytes

SHA-256

b48c0d0b1d83829c7494e3ef28e640d6a91a39123c86fcdc86110c6a2eeb4d17

Our copy

gov.uscourts.tned.105535.81.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)