Order denying 969 Motion for Reduction of Sentence - USSC Amendment — USA v. Thomas et al. (Dkt. 1157, N.D. Ga.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS · Doc. 1157 · 2025-01-02 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 
 
 
v. 
     CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 
     1:20-CR-00296-JPB-CMS-1 
DARRELL THOMAS, 
 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
ORDER  
 
This matter is before the Court on Darrell Thomas’s (“Defendant”) Pro Se 
Motion for Reduction of Sentence [Doc. 1156].  This Court finds as follows: 
BACKGROUND 
On August 4, 2020, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging 
Defendant with several fraud offenses.  [Doc. 1].  On June 16, 2021, Defendant 
pled guilty to Counts 1 and 18 for bank and wire fraud.  [Doc. 127].  On May 23, 
2022, this Court sentenced Defendant to a total term of 180 months of 
incarceration followed by a term of supervised release.  [Doc. 475, pp. 2–3].   
On April 15, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to request a sentence 
reduction under Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines 
Manual.  [Doc. 969].  In his motion, Defendant argues that he is eligible for a two-
point sentence reduction under Part B of Amendment 821.  See id.  The 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1157     Filed 01/02/25     Page 1 of 3

 2
Government filed a Response on December 30, 2024, arguing that Defendant is 
ineligible for a reduction in his sentence because he received an upward 
adjustment.  [Doc. 155, p. 2]. 
ANALYSIS 
“[A] motion to modify an otherwise final judgment pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 
3582(c)(2)] is a limited and narrow exception to the rule that final judgments are 
not to be modified.”  United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 909 (11th Cir. 
2003).  Indeed, § 3582(c)(2) provides: 
[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 . . . , 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. 
 
Thus, under § 3582(c)(2), the Court must undertake a two-step process to 
determine whether a final sentence should be modified based on a sentencing range 
that has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.  First, the Court must 
determine if a retroactive amendment lowers a defendant’s guidelines range and 
whether a reduction is consistent with the applicable policy statements.  Second, 
the Court must consider the § 3553(a) factors to determine if it will exercise its 
discretion to reduce a defendant’s sentence. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1157     Filed 01/02/25     Page 2 of 3

 3
 
Defendant invokes Part B to Amendment 821, which provides a two-
offense-level reduction for individuals that have zero criminal history points and 
meet ten other requirements.  On February 1, 2024, the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission made this change retroactive.  See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(e)(2) (Nov. 1, 
2023).  Significantly, the Amendment provides for a reduction only if “the 
defendant did not receive an upward adjustment under § 3B1.1.”  Here, Defendant 
received an upward adjustment under § 3B1.1(a) for his central role in the crime.  
See [Doc. 603, p. 10].  Thus, he does not qualify for a reduction under Part B of 
Amendment 821.  Because Defendant fails to meet the first requirement for a 
reduction in sentence, the Court will not perform an analysis of the § 3553(a) 
factors as applied to Defendant’s request for a reduction in sentence. 
CONCLUSION 
 
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Reduction of 
Sentence [Doc. 1156] is DENIED. 
 
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of January, 2025. 
 
_______________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J. P. BOULEE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States District Judge 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1157     Filed 01/02/25     Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.279863.1157.0.pdf

Size

135,880 bytes

SHA-256

94f57158f3d8085aba5bcd4ae9b1fc699872ce50f211a3a0695c4dad0cd21eb3

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.279863.1157.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)