Response in Opposition as to Darrell Thomas filed by USA — USA v. Thomas et al. (Dkt. 1156, N.D. Ga.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS · Doc. 1156 · 2024-12-30 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
v. 
DARRELL THOMAS 
 
Criminal Action No. 
1:20-CR-296-JPB-CMS-1 
 
Government’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Sentence 
Reduction Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 
The United States of America, by Ryan K. Buchanan, United States Attorney, 
and Sarah E. Klapman, Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District 
of Georgia, files this response in opposition to Defendant Thomas’s Motion for 
Sentence Reduction. Because Defendant is not eligible for this relief, the motion 
should be denied. 
A. Background 
In June 2021, Defendant Thomas pleaded guilty to fraud and money 
laundering offenses (Doc. 127). His original guidelines were calculated as 
follows: 
Base offense level:  
 
 
331 
1956 conviction: 
 
 
 
+2 
Role:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
+4 
 
1 The fraud and money laundering counts group. Pursuant to the grouping 
rules, the count with the greater offense level is used. In this case, that is the 
money laundering count (PSR, ¶ 173). 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1156     Filed 12/30/24     Page 1 of 8

2 
 
Obstruction: 
 
 
 
 
+2 
Acceptance:  
 
 
 
 
-3 
Total offense level: 
 
 
38 
Criminal history score:  
0 
Criminal history category: I 
Custody guideline range: 235 to 293 months 
See Exhibit 1, chart prepared by the United States Probation Office. After the 
Court varied upon consideration of the 3553(a) factors, Defendant was sentenced 
to 180 months’ imprisonment with supervised release to follow (Doc. 475). He 
has now filed a pro se motion seeking a sentence reduction under Amendment 
821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Doc. 969).  
B. Eligibility 
In Part B, Subpart 1 to Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines, the 
Sentencing Commission added USSG § 4A1.1(c), providing a 2-offense-level 
reduction for certain offenders who have zero criminal history points, but only if 
they qualify by establishing each of ten separate requirements.2 The new 
provision states: 
§ 4C1.1. 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 Amendment 821 provided for ten exclusions from eligibility. Previously, the 
separate criteria provided in U.S.S.G. §§ 4C1.1(a)(10) and (11) were contained 
together in subpart (10). Section 4C1.1 has since been amended to separate these 
exclusions from eligibility to address alleged ambiguity, and the amended 
guideline is provided here. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1156     Filed 12/30/24     Page 2 of 8

3 
 
(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 
(11) the defendant was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as 
defined in 21 U.S.C. § 848; 
 
decrease the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three by 2 
levels. 
The Commission later made this change retroactive as of February 1, 2024. See 
§ 1B1.10(e)(2) (Nov. 1, 2023). 
Defendant presents the current motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 
That section provides that a court may, in its discretion, reduce the sentence of a 
defendant whose Sentencing Guidelines range has been lowered by a 
retroactively applicable Sentencing Guidelines amendment, where the reduction 
is consistent with the sentencing factors of § 3553(a) and any applicable policy 
statements: 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1156     Filed 12/30/24     Page 3 of 8

4 
 
[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. 
In Section 1B1.10 of the Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission has identified 
the amendments which may be applied retroactively pursuant to this authority, 
including Part B, Subpart 1 of Amendment 821, and articulated the proper 
procedure for implementing those amendments. Section 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) 
provides: “Except as provided in subdivision (B) [related to substantial 
assistance], 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,” that is, the range produced by application of the retroactive 
guideline amendment. 
In Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010), the Supreme Court addressed 
the process for application of a retroactive guideline amendment, emphasizing 
that Section 1B1.10 is binding. The Court declared: “Any reduction must be 
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 
Commission.” Id. at 821. The Court required district courts to follow a two-step 
approach: 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1156     Filed 12/30/24     Page 4 of 8

5 
 
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.” Ibid. 
 
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). 
. . . 
 
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.  
Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827.  
In this case, Defendant was a zero-point offender. But he received an upward 
adjustment to his base offense level for his role as an organizer or leader of a 
criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise 
extensive (PSR, ¶ 170). As a result, he is excluded from relief by U.S.S.G. 
§ 4C1.1(a)(10). Given that Defendant is ineligible for relief, the Court need not 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1156     Filed 12/30/24     Page 5 of 8

6 
 
address whether the 3553(a) factors would support a reduced sentence and 
should instead deny the motion without further analysis.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1156     Filed 12/30/24     Page 6 of 8

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
7 
 
Conclusion 
For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion should be denied. 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
RYAN K. BUCHANAN 
United States Attorney 
/s/SARAH E. KLAPMAN 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 437221 
sarah.klapman@usdoj.gov 
 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1156     Filed 12/30/24     Page 7 of 8

 
Certificate of Service 
The United States Attorney’s Office served this document today by sending a 
copy by first class mail with sufficient postage to: 
Darrell Thomas 
Reg No 73324-019 
Federal Correction Complex 
Coleman-Low 
P.O. Box 1031 
Coleman, FL 33521 
 
December 30, 2024 
 
/s/ SARAH E. KLAPMAN 
 
SARAH E. KLAPMAN 
 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1156     Filed 12/30/24     Page 8 of 8

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.279863.1156.0.pdf

Size

135,714 bytes

SHA-256

106659d2c81dc44b60b43447c9434e14b10d29a4e1a0b13c1ed96bf52408aa36

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.279863.1156.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)