Reply to Response to Motion by Chad Brandon Thomas — USA v. Thomas (Dkt. 84, 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. 
        ) 
 
REPLY TO GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SENTENCE 
REDUCTION UNDER GUIDELINE AMENDMENT 821, PART B 
 
The government agrees that Chad Thomas is eligible for a reduction in his 
sentence under Amendment 821 and further agrees that he is eligible for a reduction 
to a comparably within-range sentence of 32 months, as Mr. Thomas requests. (Gov’t 
Resp. at 1, 4, Doc. 82.) The government also acknowledges that Mr. Thomas has not 
incurred any disciplinary infractions while in BOP custody. (Id. at 4.) The 
government does not oppose a reduction, leaving it to the Court’s discretion whether 
and to what extent it should grant relief. (Id. at 1, 5.) Mr. Thomas respectfully 
submits this reply to address the government’s suggestion that the Court might 
reasonably deny his motion.  
The government suggests that the seriousness of Mr. Thomas’s conduct in this 
case could reasonably support a decision not to grant any reduction at all. (Id. at 4.) 
But his sentence of 40 months is now above the top of the range that applies today, 
so if left intact would in effect be an upward variance. Nothing in the case supports 
an upward variance, while everything supports a comparable within-range sentence. 

2 
 
As outlined in Mr. Thomas’s motion, the Court’s decision to impose a sentence 
three months above the bottom of the then-applicable range of 37 to 46 months was 
meant to account for all the aggravating factors present in the case, as measured and 
informed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, as well as the Court’s independent 
consideration of § 3553(a) factors—so it fully accounted for the seriousness of Mr. 
Thomas’s conduct. (See Supp. Motion at 4, Doc. 81.) The 40-month, within-range 
sentence thus reflected guideline enhancements totaling 16 offense levels1 and the 
Court’s consideration of his conduct under § 3553(a), which it said did not support a 
sentence at the top of the range. (See id.) 
Mr. Thomas’s amended guideline range of 30 to 37 months still includes all  
the same 16 offense levels for aggravating conduct accounting for the seriousness of 
his conduct. A sentence two months above the bottom of that range would therefore 
still account for the seriousness of his conduct as measured and informed by the U.S. 
Sentencing Commission and considered by the Court under § 3553(a), and would 
reflect a comparable weighing of that seriousness vis-à-vis the applicable guideline 
range. In contrast, an above-range sentence of 40 months would weigh the 
seriousness of his conduct much more heavily than at the original sentencing. Now, 
instead of warranting a sentence eight percent above the bottom of the applicable 
 
1 Counsel for Mr. Thomas inadvertently misstated the number of offense levels 
reflecting guideline enhancements. It is 16 levels, not 14 levels. Mr. Thomas’s 
guideline calculation included a 12-level enhancement for loss, which included loss 
amounts for dismissed counts reflecting repeated conduct; a 2-level enhancement for 
sophisticated means; and 2-level enhancement for misrepresenting that he was 
acting on behalf of a religious organization. (PSR ¶¶ 38, 39, 40, Doc. 29.) 

3 
 
range, Mr. Thomas’s same conduct would somehow warrant a sentence thirty-three 
percent above the bottom of the applicable applicable range—exceeding the top of the 
range by three months.  
Data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission confirms that such an above-range 
sentence would create unwarranted disparities with similarly situated offenders. For 
fiscal years 2018 through 2022, nearly all offenders in Criminal History Category I 
whose primary guideline was § 2B1.1 and whose final offense level was 19 (so 
reflecting all aggravating guideline factors) were sentenced within or below the 
applicable range. See U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, Judiciary Sentencing Information (JSIN) 
– 2018 to 2022 (2023) (filtered by primary guideline, criminal history category, and 
final offense level). Out of 387 total offenders in this category, just 8 people 
(representing a mere 2 percent of the category) were sentenced above the range.  
There is nothing so unusually serious about Mr. Thomas’s conduct that would 
warrant relegating him in the ranks of this tiny cohort of outlier fraud offenders 
whose conduct warranted an upward variance or departure. And it would conflict 
with the rationale animating Mr. Thomas’s current sentence. At sentencing, the 
Court discussed the importance of the guideline range, explaining that “the guideline 
range is often important because it generally reflects a proper consideration of all 
those factors listed in 3553(a),” and that in this case, “they’ve done exactly that” so 
that the Court “start[s] with a guideline range that appears to reflect, in my view, all 
the 3553(a) factors.” (Sent’g Tr. at 28, Doc. 79.)  

4 
 
Reducing Mr. Thomas’s sentence to one within the amended range but still two 
months above the bottom (as he requests) is consistent with the Court’s treatment of 
the applicable guideline range as the appropriate starting point, the Commission’s 
evolved view of zero-point offenders as now reflected in the amended range, and the 
comparable placement in the amended range. It also accounts for Mr. Thomas’s 
conduct since the original sentencing, which confirms his lower risk of reoffending as 
recognized by the Commission through this amendment. U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 
821, pt. B (Nov. 1, 2023) (Reason for Amendment) (“[O]ffenders with zero criminal 
history points have considerably lower recidivism rates than other offenders, 
including offenders with one criminal history point.” (citing U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, 
Recidivism of Federal Offenders Released in 2010 (2021)). 
Mr. Thomas respectfully urges this Court to reduce his sentence to 32 months’ 
imprisonment. 
 
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.105535.84.0.pdf

Size

84,377 bytes

SHA-256

54c51f6fab9b6080c2ea2df75e246375e23e9885a8ee6ed8d0be5aa820bb6d4c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.tned.105535.84.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)