Reply to Government's Response to Motion for Sentence Reduction — United States v. Chad Brandon Thomas

Summary

Assistant Federal Defender Jennifer Niles Coffin replied for Chad Thomas in Case No. 2:22-cr-00076 (E.D. Tenn.) that the government agrees Chad Thomas is eligible under Guideline Amendment 821, Part B for a reduction to 32 months and does not oppose one, leaving the extent to the Court's discretion. The reply argues the original 40-month sentence, three months above the bottom of the then-applicable range of 37 to 46 months, is now above the top of the amended range of 30 to 37 months and would in effect be an upward variance. The amended range still includes all 16 offense levels of enhancements, among them a 12-level enhancement for loss. Citing Sentencing Commission data for fiscal years 2018 through 2022, the reply says just 8 of 387 comparable offenders were sentenced above the range. It asks for a sentence of 32 months' imprisonment.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

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.
      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.)
                                           2
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.)




                                            3
      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




                                          4


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

No public link identified.