Order Denying Motion for Sentence Reduction, U.S. v. Shambrica Washington, No. 1:22-cr-00187, Dkt. 268 (D. Colo.)

Summary

An Order Denying Motion for Sentence Reduction in United States of America v. Shambrica Washington, Criminal Case No. 22-cr-187-WJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, filed March 17, 2025 as Document 268. Washington moved for a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821, seeking the zero-point offender adjustment. The order recounts that a jury convicted Washington in June 2024 on counts of wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering and false claims, and that the court sentenced Washington in October 2024 to a total term of imprisonment of 90 months. It finds Washington is not a zero-point offender because of one criminal history point for a prior felony offense in El Paso County District Court, and denies the motion. The signature block names William J. Martínez, Senior 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

“Order Denying Motion for Sentence Reduction, U.S. v. Shambrica Washington, No. 1:22-cr-00187, Dkt. 268 (D. Colo.).” Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/order-denying-motion-for-sentence-reduction-u-s-v-shambrica-washington-d3e50c2f70/, SHA-256 943a66dc798b90fffd85a1e0635448671081f8c0bd9e65385636fb82b8598f49.

Full text

Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 268 filed 03/17/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez

Criminal Case No. 22-cr-187-WJM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

1. SHAMBRICA WASHINGTON,

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant Shambrica Washington’s Motion for Reduction of

Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the Federal

Sentencing Guidelines (ECF No. 238) (“Motion”). The Government filed a response.

(ECF No. 242.) Defendant did not file a reply.

For the reasons explained below, the Motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

In June 2024, a jury convicted Defendant on three counts of wire fraud, two

counts of bank fraud, 22 counts of money laundering, and four counts of false claims.

(ECF No. 199.) In the Presentence Investigation Report, which the Court adopted

without change, Defendant was assessed one criminal history point for a prior felony

offense to which Defendant pleaded guilty in El Paso County District Court in 2020.

(ECF No. 218 at 14–15; ECF No. 227 at 1.) In October 2024, the Court sentenced

Defendant to a total term of imprisonment of 90 months. (ECF No. 226 at 3.)
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 268 filed 03/17/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

Defendant now asks the Court to reduce her sentence in accordance with

Amendment 821’s provision for the reduction in offense level for certain offenders with

zero criminal history points. (See generally ECF No. 238.) She states she is “[n]ot sure

what [she] received criminal history points for” because it was not “discussed with [her],”

but that she has “[n]o federal cases.” (Id. at 3–4.) She also states she “shouldn’t have

been given any points as it was a nonviolent offense.” (Id. at 4.)

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court may modify the sentence

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. § 944(o), upon motion of the
defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons [“BOP”],
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.

The Sentencing Guidelines, in turn, direct that:

A reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not
consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not
authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if—

(A) none of the amendments listed in subsection (d) is
applicable to the defendant; or

(B) an amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have
the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline
range.

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2) (2024 ed.).

To determine “whether, and to what extent, a reduction in the defendant’s term of

imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and [U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10] is warranted,”

courts must “determine the amended guideline range that would have been applicable

2
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 268 filed 03/17/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines . . . had been in effect at the time

the defendant was sentenced.” § 1B1.10(b)(1). Absent exception, courts “shall not

reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment . . . to a term that is less than the minimum

of the amended guideline range . . . .” § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). This limitation also applies “[i]f

the term of imprisonment imposed was outside the guideline range applicable to the

defendant at the time of sentencing,” such as where the sentence “constitut[ed] a

downward departure or variance.” § 1B1.10, cmt. 3.

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant asks the Court to reduce her sentence in accordance with

Amendment 821’s provision relating to offense level adjustments for “zero-point

offenders.” § 1B1.10(d), cmt. 7; § 4C1.1(a). That provision instructs that a court should

“decrease the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three” of the

Sentencing Guidelines “by 2 levels” if, among ten additional criteria, “the defendant did

not receive any criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A.” § 4C1.1(a).

As noted, however, Defendant is not a zero-point offender because she had one

criminal history point at the time of sentencing. See Section I infra. Although Defendant

appears to argue she should not have received any criminal history points because she

had no prior sentences for federal, violent offenses, the Sentencing Guidelines do not

so limit the assessment of criminal history points. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c) (2024 ed.)

(“Sentences for all felony offenses are counted.”); § 4A1.2(o) (“a ‘felony offense’ means

any federal, state, or local offense punishable by death or a term of imprisonment

exceeding one year, regardless of the actual sentence imposed”).

In short, because Defendant had one criminal history point at sentencing, she is

3
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 268 filed 03/17/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4

not entitled to an offense level reduction in accordance with the zero-point offender

provision.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction (ECF

No. 238) is DENIED.

Dated this 17th day of March, 2025.

BY THE COURT:

______________________
William J. Martínez
Senior United States District Judge

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cod.215884.268.0.pdf
Size: 129,039 bytes
SHA-256: 943a66dc798b90fffd85a1e0635448671081f8c0bd9e65385636fb82b8598f49
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cod.215884.268.0.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com