Memorandum and Order — United States v. Robert Hopkins IV, No. 1:20-cr-00248 (Dkt. 128, D. Md.)

Summary

Memorandum and Order in United States v. Robert Hopkins IV, Criminal No. DKC 20-248-2 (Document 128), United States District Court for the District of Maryland, filed April 2, 2025. The order addresses motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), for reduction of sentence under Amendment 821, to correct a clerical error in the presentence report, and for release to home detention, plus a letter asking for an amended judgment directing home confinement. It states that Mr. Hopkins was sentenced on September 16, 2022, to a total of 51 months imprisonment, with restitution of $456,786.54. The court denies all relief and states that the Bureau of Prisons, not the court, designates the place of confinement. The order is signed /s/ by Deborah K. Chasanow, United States District Judge.

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

Cite this document

“Memorandum and Order — United States v. Robert Hopkins IV, No. 1:20-cr-00248 (Dkt. 128, D. Md.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/memorandum-and-order-united-states-v-robert-hopkins-iv-no-1-20-cr-0024-fec6c79079/, SHA-256 75bdb1066a39aa4610df30aac90deac12384a571b3edd813c8b913ceb71813db.

Full text

Case 1:20-cr-00248-DKC Document 128 Filed 04/02/25 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:

v. : Criminal No. DKC 20-248-2

:
ROBERT HOPKINS IV
:

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

Robert Hopkins IV filed several overlapping motions: 1) a

motion seeking a compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(1)(A) (ECF No. 119); 2) a motion for reduction of sentence

under Amendment 821 (ECF No. 122); 3) a motion to correct a

clerical error in his presentence report (ECF No. 124); 4) a motion

for release to home detention (ECF No. 125), and 5) a letter

requesting an updated/amended judgment to direct that the final

portion of his sentence be served in home confinement (ECF No.

126). For the reasons that follow, all relief will be denied.

Mr. Hopkins was convicted of participating in a wire fraud

conspiracy and aggravated identity theft. He, along with others,

used various victims’ stolen identities to open account receivable

accounts, purchase merchandise, and fail to pay the account

balance. He was sentenced on September 16, 2022, to a total of 51

months imprisonment followed by three-years’ supervised release

and ordered to pay $456,786.54 in restitution. The sentences were
Case 1:20-cr-00248-DKC Document 128 Filed 04/02/25 Page 2 of 12

27 months on count one and a mandatory 24 months consecutive on

count two pursuant to a plea agreement under Fed.R.Crim.P.

11(c)(1)(C). His current projected release date is March 7, 2026.

The sentencing guidelines for count one, the wire fraud

conspiracy, were 33 to 41 months, based on offense level 20 and

criminal history category I. He had a single criminal history

point from a conviction in 2013 for failure to return rental

vehicle for which he received one-year unsupervised probation

before judgment in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County,

Maryland. The guidelines for count 23 were the 24 months

consecutive that were mandatory. The sentence imposed was below

the guidelines by 6 months. Mr. Hopkins reports that the Baltimore

County conviction was expunged on February 12, 2024.

Mr. Hopkins asserts that he should be released to care for

his elderly father who requires a full-time caregiver. He argues

that he is “the only available caregiver” to care for his father,

that he is not a danger to the community, that he has not incurred

any disciplinary infractions while in the custody of the Bureau of

Prisons (“BOP”), and that his crime was not violent. He also

contends that, due to the expungement of his prior conviction, he

is now a “zero point” offender deserving of a two-level downward

adjustment in his offense level due to the retroactive guideline
2
Case 1:20-cr-00248-DKC Document 128 Filed 04/02/25 Page 3 of 12

amendment 821. Consequently, he seeks an order to amend his pre-

sentence report.

Ordinarily, a court may not alter a sentence after it is

imposed. There are limited exceptions, however. One is pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the compassionate release statute.

Under that statute, a court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if

there are “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for the reduction

that are “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by

the Sentencing Commission,” and the §3553(a) factors also support

reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

A district court analyzes a compassionate
release motion in two steps. First, it
determines whether the defendant is eligible
for a sentence reduction. See United States v.
Bond, 56 F.4th 381, 383 (4th Cir. 2023). To
be eligible, the court must find that relief
is warranted because of “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” and “consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.” [United States v.]
High, 997 F.3d [181 (4th Cir. 2021)] at 186;
see § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Second, the court
considers whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors support relief. Bond, 56
F.4th at 384; § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

United States v. Moody, 115 F.4th 304, 310 (4th Cir. 2024).

3
Case 1:20-cr-00248-DKC Document 128 Filed 04/02/25 Page 4 of 12

The Sentencing Commission adopted a new policy statement that

was effective November 1, 2023:

The Sentencing Commission has promulgated a
policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, which
attempts to define what may constitute
“extraordinary and compelling reasons.”
United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 276 (4th
Cir. 2020). The Sentencing Commission recently
amended the policy statement. Effective
November 1, 2023, the amended policy statement
provides a non-exhaustive list of
extraordinary and compelling reasons for
reducing a sentence:

(1) the medical circumstances of the
defendant, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1);

(2) the age of the defendant, U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13(b)(2);

(3) family circumstances of the defendant,
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3);

(4) whether the defendant was a victim of
abuse while incarcerated, U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13(b)(4);

(5) “other reasons,” U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13(b)(5); or

(6) an unusually long sentence, if the
defendant meets certain conditions,
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6).

United States v. Moore, No. 4:15-CR-1, 2024 WL 4148646, at *2 (E.D.

Va. Sept. 11, 2024). “Family circumstances” include the

“incapacitation of the defendant’s parent when the defendant would

4
Case 1:20-cr-00248-DKC Document 128 Filed 04/02/25 Page 5 of 12

be the only available caregiver for the parent.” U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.13(b)(3)(C). The specific conditions in subsection (6) are:

If a defendant received an unusually long
sentence and has served at least 10 years of
the term of imprisonment, a change in the law
(other than an amendment to the Guidelines
Manual that has not been made retroactive) may
be considered in determining whether the
defendant presents an extraordinary and
compelling reason, but only where such change
would produce a gross disparity between the
sentence being served and the sentence likely
to be imposed at the time the motion is filed,
and after consideration of the defendant’s
individual circumstances.

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). No other change in the law may be

considered in determining whether an extraordinary and compelling

reason exists, but may be considered in determining the extend of

any reduction, if one is otherwise authorized.

At the time of sentencing, the court was aware of the health

situation of Mr. Hopkins’ father and Mr. Hopkins’ role in

caregiving for both of his parents, and delayed his surrender date

to give the family time to make alternate arrangements. While the

court is sympathetic to the concerns expressed, there are other

family members who are available, albeit maybe not a single full-

time caregiver. Nor does he satisfy the “overlong sentence”

criteria, having been sentenced to and having served well under

5
Case 1:20-cr-00248-DKC Document 128 Filed 04/02/25 Page 6 of 12

ten years. Thus, Mr. Hopkins fails to satisfy the standard for

immediate compassionate release.

Amendment 821 presents another, and a more complicated

situation, for potential modification of sentence. Under some

circumstances, the vacating or expungement of a prior conviction

after the initial sentencing presents grounds for reopening the

sentence pursuant to a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. “[A]

defendant given a sentence enhanced for a prior conviction is

entitled to a reduction if the earlier conviction is vacated.

Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994); Daniels v. United

States, 532 U.S. 374 (2001).” Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S.

295, 303 (2005). Such a motion would have to be filed within one

year of the date on which the sentence was vacated, and a

petitioner would have to have “shown due diligence in seeking the

order” vacating the conviction. Id. at 302. Mr. Hopkins did not

file such a motion and, in reality, his sentence was not “enhanced”

due to the prior conviction. Rather, he seeks to avail himself of

the retroactive guideline amendment for zero-point offenders.

That effort fails, however, because of the limitations inherent in

the provisions.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) provides that a court may

modify/reduce the sentence of a defendant who was “sentenced to a
6
Case 1:20-cr-00248-DKC Document 128 Filed 04/02/25 Page 7 of 12

term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” if the

reduction is consistent with the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) and the applicable policy statements of the Sentencing

Commission. In addition, a defendant is only eligible for relief

if an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines has been made

retroactively applicable. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817,

826 (2010).

Part B of Amendment 821 retroactively affects those who have

zero criminal history points and who have none of the specified

aggravating factors. 1 For those who qualify, there is a two-level

reduction in the offense level. As noted above, Mr. Hopkins had

one criminal history point at the time of his initial sentencing.

The question, then, is whether the subsequent expungement 2 of the

prior conviction may be considered.

1
Because Mr. Hopkins is not eligible for sentence reduction,
it is not necessary to assess whether he would be disqualified
because he personally caused substantial financial hardship.

2
An “expunged” conviction is not counted for criminal history
purposes pursuant to 4A1.2(j), but the term “expunge” is not
defined. It may well be that expungement under Maryland law for
successful completion of probation does not qualify as
“expungement” for guideline purposes. Robinson v. United States,
No. 14-CR-0568-CCB, 2020 WL 5074408, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 25, 2020).
7
Case 1:20-cr-00248-DKC Document 128 Filed 04/02/25 Page 8 of 12

Section 1B1.10 (b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines—which

governs § 3582(c)(2)—provides as follows:

In determining whether, and to what extent, a
reduction in the defendant’s term of
imprisonment . . . is warranted, the court
shall determine the amended guideline range
that would have been applicable to the
defendant if the amendment(s) to the
guidelines listed in subsection (d) had been
in effect at the time the defendant was
sentenced. In making such determination, the
court shall substitute only the amendments
listed in subsection (d) for the corresponding
guideline provisions that were applied when
the defendant was sentenced and shall leave
all other guideline application decisions
unaffected.

At least one court has determined that later expungement by

a state court may not be considered:

A reduction is only permissible, per the
Sentencing Guidelines, if “the guideline range
applicable to [a] defendant has subsequently
been lowered as a result of a[ ] [retroactive]
amendment to the Guidelines Manual.” Id. §
1B1.10(a)(1) (emphasis added). The Guidelines
thus do not contemplate or authorize “plenary
resentencing proceedings.” Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). Here,
[defendant’s] guideline range has not “been
lowered as a result of a[ ] [retroactive]
amendment to the Guidelines Manual,” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(1), but as a result of New York’s
decision to expunge [his] convictions for
certain offenses. Except to the extent
authorized by Amendment 821, he is therefore
ineligible to benefit from the resentencing
procedures provided for in § 3582(c)(2).

8
Case 1:20-cr-00248-DKC Document 128 Filed 04/02/25 Page 9 of 12

United States v. Padilla, No. 16 CR. 317-04 (PAE), 2024 WL 749566,

at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2024). The determination under USSG §

4A1.1(c) that the prior conviction scored a single point must

remain unchanged. Mr. Hopkins is ineligible for modification of

his sentence under Amendment 821. 3

Mr. Hopkins’ motion to correct a clerical error in his

presentence report (ECF No. 124) must be denied. There is no

“error” in his report. Rather, there has been a subsequent change

in the status of a prior conviction. Even if there were some

matter to be remedied, he would need to seek relief through the

BOP administrative process.

BOP Program Statement 5800.11, Inmate Central
File, Privacy Folder, and Parole Mini–Files,
. . . provides a framework for BOP to use when
an inmate challenges information in his file.
It states:

c. Inmate Challenge to Information. An
inmate may challenge the accuracy of the
information in his or her Inmate Central
File. Unit team staff shall take
reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy
of challenged information, particularly
when that information is capable of being
verified. The inmate is required to
provide staff with sufficient information
in support of a challenge (names of

3 Also as noted before, Mr. Hopkins was sentenced below the
guideline range as a result of his “C” plea. His sentence is at
the low end of the range for offense level 18, which is two levels
under the range established at the time of sentencing.
9
Case 1:20-cr-00248-DKC Document 128 Filed 04/02/25 Page 10 of 12

persons to contact, government agency,
etc. . . .)

When an inmate provides such information,
staff shall review the alleged error(s)
and take reasonable steps to ensure the
information is correct.

For example, if an inmate challenges
information in the Presentence
Investigation Report (PSI), staff should
inform the appropriate U.S. Probation
Office (USPO) in writing of the disputed
information, and request that a written
response also be provided. USPO
procedures, however, do not allow for
changes or addendums to be made to the
Presentence Investigation Report after
sentencing since it is a court document.

If the USPO subsequently reports that the
challenged information, or some part
thereof is not accurate, staff shall
attach the Bureau’s inquiry and the USPO
response to the challenged document.
Staff shall file this information in the
applicable section of the Inmate Central
File, and also make notation on the
Inmate Activity Record form (BP–381) to
ensure that future decisions affecting
the inmate are not based on the
discredited information.

When the USPO verifies that the
information in the PSI is indeed
inaccurate, as claimed by the inmate,
staff should subsequently review, and
where indicated, correct Bureau
generated reports or data such as the
Inmate Load and Security Designation form
(BP–337), the Custody Classification
form (BP–388), Progress Report, and any
other reports that may have been based on
10
Case 1:20-cr-00248-DKC Document 128 Filed 04/02/25 Page 11 of 12

the PSI. Bureau reports, data, or SENTRY
transactions should be corrected within
a reasonable period of time after
identification as being inaccurate.

Gosier v. Mitchell, No. C/A 3:09-931-JFA-JRM, 2010 WL 619175, at

*2–3 (D.S.C. Feb. 18, 2010).

Finally, his requests for placement on home detention (ECF

No. 125) and letter requesting permission to serve the remainder

of the sentence under home confinement (ECF No. 126) must also be

denied. Mr. Hopkins is under the BOP’s authority until he is

released. Consequently, the court lacks jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3624(c)(1) reads:

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall,
to the extent practicable, ensure that a
prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends
a portion of the final months of that term
(not to exceed 12 months), under conditions
that will afford that prisoner a reasonable
opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the
reentry of that prisoner into the community.
Such conditions may include a community
correctional facility.

The BOP, rather than the district court, has the authority to

designate the place of a prisoner’s confinement. United States v.

Bryant, 720 F.Supp. 3d 450, 455 (W.D.Va. 2024). The court declines

to alter the Judgment Order.

11
Case 1:20-cr-00248-DKC Document 128 Filed 04/02/25 Page 12 of 12

For the foregoing reasons, all of Mr. Hopkins’ requests will

be denied, and it is this 2nd day of April, 2025, by the United

States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED that:

1. The motion for compassionate release (ECF No. 119); the

motion for reduction of sentence under Amendment 821 (ECF No. 122);

3) the motion to correct a clerical error in his presentence report

(ECF No. 124); 4) the motion for release to home detention (ECF

No. 125), and (5) the letter request for an updated/amended

judgment to direct that the final portion of his sentence be served

in home confinement (ECF No. 126) filed by Defendant Robert Hopkins

IV, BE, and the same hereby ARE, DENIED; and

2. The Clerk IS DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this Order

to Mr. Hopkins and to counsel of record.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

File and source

File: 128.pdf
Size: 67,462 bytes
SHA-256: 75bdb1066a39aa4610df30aac90deac12384a571b3edd813c8b913ceb71813db
Our copy: 128.pdf
Original: No public link identified.