United States v. Shakeena Hamilton — Order (Southern District of Georgia, Document 33)

Summary

An order in United States of America v. Shakeena Hamilton, CR 322-005, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Dublin Division, filed July 19, 2024 as Document 33, on a motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court treats the motion as a request for relief under Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which went into effect on November 1, 2023. It finds Hamilton was not a zero-point offender and that removing two status points would lower the criminal history score from 6 to 4 but leave the criminal history category at III and the guideline range of 57 to 60 months unchanged. The motion (doc. no. 31) is denied. The filing also includes the AO 247 form motion, Document 31, filed March 15, 2024.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 3:22-cr-00005-DHB-BKE Document 33 Filed 07/19/24 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

DUBLIN DIVISION sour raccne THCY OF GEORGIA
JUL 18 2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
v. + CR 322-005 FILED
*
SHAKEENA HAMILTON
ORDER

Defendant Shakeena Hamilton filed a form order indicating that
she wishes to file a motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2). Given the timing of the motion, the Court
presumes that she is requesting a modification of sentence based upon
Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

Amendment 821 went into effect on November 1, 2023, after
Defendant was sentenced. Amendment 821 (Part B) provides a
retroactive decrease in offense level for certain “zero point”
offenders. Defendant was not a zero-point offender; she was assigned
four criminal history points.

Amendment 821 (Part A) provides a retroactive adjustment for

a

certain offenders whose criminal history was impacted by’ “status
points” under U.S.S.G. § 4Al.1. Here, Defendant’s criminal history
computation was impacted by status points, but Amendment 821 provides

no relief. Under the prior version of § 4Al1.1, Defendant’s criminal

history score of 4 was increased by two “status points” because she
Case 3:22-cr-00005-DHB-BKE Document 33 Filed 07/19/24 Page 2 of 3

had committed this federal offense while under a criminal justice
sentence. Under the amended § 4Al1.1, Defendant would not receive any
status points. Thus, her total criminal history score would fall
from 6 to 4 upon retroactive application of § 4Al.1(e). The problem
for Defendant is that whether she has a criminal history score of
four or six, her criminal history category remains unchanged at III.
That means here guideline range of 57 to 60 remains unchanged.?+
Because Amendment 821 has no effect on her guideline range,
Defendant Hamilton’s motion to reduce her sentence based upon

Amendment 821 (doc. no. 31) is DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this day of July,

UNITED sare) DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Defendant’s guideline range was computed to be 57 to 71 months
for total offense level 23 and criminal history category of III.
Because the statutorily authorized maximum sentence of five years
is less than the maximum of this guideline range, her actual
guideline range became 57 to 60 months.

2
Case 3:22-cr-00005-DHB-BKE Document 33 Filed 07/19/24 Page 3 of 3
Case 3:22-cr-00005-DHB-BKE Document 31. Filed 03/15/24 Page 1 of 3

AO 247 (Rev. 03/19) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to (8 U.S.C, § 3582(c)(2) Page | of 2 (Page 2 Not for Public Disclosure)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the at

United States of America

)
. ) USMNo: create - SOG
Date of Original Judgment: Ok 30) OAD) )

Date of Previous Amended Judgment:
(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant's Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION
PURSUANT TO:18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of the defendant C] the Director of the Bureau of Prisons [_] the court under 18 U.S.C."
§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10
and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C, § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:
DENIED. GRANTED and the defendant's previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as re/lecred in

the last judgment issued) OF months isreducedto = oe

‘See Page 2 for additional parts. Complete Parts Land IT of Page 2 when motion is granted)

Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED. .

Order Date:

Judge's signature

Effective Date:
(if different jrom order date) ~~ Printed name and title


File and source

File

33-order-on-defendant-s-18-u-s-c-3582-c-2-sentence-reduction-re.pdf

Size

729,506 bytes

SHA-256

6a1ef81934f3589591482b654d8fe47f955b02bd6b9e4dfe740eb2ad2087e8e6

Our copy

33-order-on-defendant-s-18-u-s-c-3582-c-2-sentence-reduction-re.pdf

Original

archive.org