Government's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Sentence Reduction — United States v. Scott Lee Huss

Summary

Government's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(2), dated May 11, 2026, in United States of America v. Scott Lee Huss, Case No. 25-20087-CR-KMM, Southern District of Florida. The United States opposes the motion (DE 160), which seeks a reduction under 4C1.1 in light of a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. It states that at sentencing the base offense level was 7 and Guidelines were 21 to 27 months, that the Defendant received a two-level reduction under 4C1.1, and that he received a sentence of 27 months. It argues the motion should be denied because he already received a 4C1.1 reduction.

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

Case 1:25-cr-20087-KMM Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2026 Page 1 of 3




                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                                  CASE NO. 25-20087-CR-KMM


  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

  v.

  SCOTT LEE HUSS,
      a/k/a “jryako,”

        Defendant.
  ______________________________________/

            GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
              SENTENCE REDUCTION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(2)

         The United States opposes the Defendant’s motion for sentence reduction, pursuant to 18

  U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), in light of a retroactive amendment to the United States Sentencing

  Guidelines (DE 160). The Defendant seeks a reduction under 4C1.1, which would reduce his

  Guidelines range. The Defendant’s motion should be denied because he received a 4C1.1

  reduction at sentencing.

                   COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CRIMINAL CASE

         In 2020 and 2021, the Defendant stole over $600,000 from the United States federal

  government by claiming to have business income and employees that did not exist. After he spent

  his ill-gotten gains, the Defendant turned to mail fraud—in the form of sending false and fraudulent

  checks—to retain luxury vehicles he had purchased but could no longer afford.

         At sentencing, the Defendant’s base offense level was 7. He received a 14-level increase

  for a loss amount between $550,000 and $1,500,000. He received a 3-level reduction for pleading

  guilty. He received a two-level reduction under 4C1.1. He had no prior convictions, so he was

                                                   1
Case 1:25-cr-20087-KMM Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2026 Page 2 of 3




  criminal history category I. His Guidelines were 21 to 27 months. (PSI ¶ 64). He received a

  sentence of 27 months. He appealed and the appeal is currently pending before the Eleventh

  Circuit. The Defendant is serving his sentence at Coleman Low FCI, with an anticipated release

  date of January 22, 2027.

                                        LEGAL STANDARD

         A motion to reduce an otherwise final sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is a limited

  and narrow exception to the rule that final sentences are not to be modified. See United States v.

  Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 909 (11th Cir. 2003). Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 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 consulting
         the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent they are applicable, if such a
         reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
         Commission.

  18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). Thus, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a district court

  must undertake a two-step process. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010). First, the

  court must determine if the defendant is eligible for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Id. at

  826-27. The statute authorizes relief only if a retroactive amendment to the sentencing guidelines

  lowers the defendant’s applicable sentencing guidelines range and relief is consistent with

  applicable policy statements. Id. The applicable policy statement here bars a court from granting

  relief below the bottom of the amended guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A).

         Then, if a defendant is eligible for 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) relief, the court must determine

  if it will exercise its discretion to reduce that defendant’s sentence after it has considered the 18

  U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, id. at 826-27, and “the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person




                                                   2
Case 1:25-cr-20087-KMM Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2026 Page 3 of 3




  or the community that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment.”

  U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n. 1(B).

                                       LEGAL ANALYSIS

         The Defendant here seeks relief based on the zero-point offenders amendment. Here, the

  Defendant in this case is not eligible for relief under the new “zero-point offender” amendment

  because he already received a 4C1.1 reduction.

                                         CONCLUSION

         Based on the foregoing, the defendant should not be granted relief.

                                                       Respectfully submitted,

                                                       JASON A. REDING QUIÑONES
                                                       UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

                                              By:      /s/ Daniel Rosenfeld
                                                       Daniel Rosenfeld
                                                       Assistant United States Attorney
                                                       Court ID No. A5503081
                                                       99 Northeast 4th Street
                                                       Miami, Florida 33132-2111
                                                       Tel: (305) 961-9268
                                                       Email: Daniel.Rosenfeld@usdoj.gov

                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

         I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 11, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing

  document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF and delivered the document by United States

  Mail to pro se defendant Scott Lee Huss. at Coleman Low FCI, 846 NE 54TH TERRACE,

  SUMTERVILLE, FL 33521

                                                                                 s/ Daniel Rosenfeld




                                                   3


File and source

File

162.pdf

Size

146,009 bytes

SHA-256

465c9049a68a9a867c17cbd20126ca03d20055838ed08d0eb8f247ba4fa593b6

Our copy

162.pdf

Original

archive.org