Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) — No. 3:21-cr-00074 (Dkt. 62, E.D. Tenn.)
Summary
An order regarding a motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), dated June 25, 2024 and filed as Document 62 in United States v. Porsha Tims Bush, Case No. 3:21-CR-74-KAC-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, signed by Judge Katherine A. Crytzer. The attached analysis states that the court sentenced Bush to fifty-seven (57) months on February 24, 2022 for wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and that she seeks a reduction under Amendment 821, Part B [Doc. 57]. It concludes that she is ineligible under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 because she received a criminal history point, and so is not eligible for a 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
Cite this document
“Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) — No. 3:21-cr-00074 (Dkt. 62, E.D. Tenn.).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/order-regarding-motion-for-sentence-reduction-pursuant-to-18-u-s-c-358-4a8813f996/
, SHA-256 615a4a80f5e47ed702703f2348a617a881fbcf777bb6c97af60f3141689fe82c.Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Eastern District of Tennessee
United States of America
v. )
) Case No: 3:21-CR-74-KAC-JEM
Porsha Tims Bush )
) USM No: 58588-509
Date of Original Judgment: 2/24/2022 )
Date of Previous Amended Judgment: ) Jonathan A. Moffatt
Defendant’s Attorney
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
Upon motion of the defendant 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 of
months is reduced to .
Please see the attached analysis.
Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Order Date: 6/25/2024
Judge’s signature
Effective Date: KATHERINE A. CRYTZER, United States District Judge
(if different from order date) Printed name and title
Case 3:21-cr-00074-KAC-JEM Document 62 Filed 06/25/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 365
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No.: 3:21-CR-74-KAC-JEM
)
PORSHA TIMS BUSH, )
)
Defendant. )
ANALYSIS
Before the Court is Defendant Porsha Tims Bush’s “Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant
to 18 USC 3582(c)(2)” [Doc. 57]. On February 24, 2022, the Court sentenced Defendant to
fifty-seven (57) months’ imprisonment for wire fraud, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1343 [Doc. 38 at 1-2]. In her motion, Defendant seeks a reduction in sentence based
on the retroactive effect of United States Sentencing Guideline Amendment 821,
Part B [Doc. 57 at 1]. The Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, pursuant to Eastern
District of Tennessee Standing Order 24-05, reviewed Defendant’s motion and “determined that
it will not file a supplemental motion” [Doc. 58 at 1]. The United States opposes because
Defendant is “ineligible for any sentence reduction” under Part B of Amendment
821 [Doc. 59 at 1].
Generally, a district court “does not have the authority to change or modify [a] sentence
unless such authority is expressly granted by statute.” United States v. Thompson, 714 F.3d 946,
948 (6th Cir. 2013). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) provides that if “a defendant 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. § 994(o),” then “the Court may reduce the term of
imprisonment, after considering” the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the
2
Case 3:21-cr-00074-KAC-JEM Document 62 Filed 06/25/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 366
“applicable [Sentencing Commission] policy statements.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, the
“decision whether and to what extent to grant an authorized sentence reduction is discretionary.”
United States v. Monday, 390 F. App’x 550, 554 (6th Cir. 2010).
In 2023, the Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 821 to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines and voted to apply Parts A and B of Amendment 821 retroactively.
See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). Under the relevant Sentencing Commission policy statement, to
determine if a reduced sentence is warranted, the Court must first “determine the amended
guideline range that would have applied to the defendant” if Amendment 821 “had been in effect
at the time the defendant was sentenced.” Id. § 1B1.10(b)(1). The Court must initially “leave all
other guideline applications unaffected.” Id. As is relevant here, Part B of Amendment 821
added Section 4C1.1 to the Guidelines. That Section authorizes a two-level reduction in offense
level if a defendant meets certain criteria:
(1) the defendant did not receive any criminal history points from Chapter
Four, Part A;
(2) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3A1.4 (Terrorism);
(3) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence in connection
with the offense;
(4) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury;
(5) the instant offense of conviction is not a sex offense;
(6) the defendant did not personally cause substantial financial hardship;
(7) the defendant did not possess, receive, purchase, transport, transfer, sell, or
otherwise dispose of a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another
participant to do so) in connection with the offense;
(8) the instant offense of conviction is not covered by §2H1.1 (Offenses Involving
Individual Rights);
(9) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3A1.1 (Hate Crime
Motivation or Vulnerable Victim) or §3A1.5 (Serious Human Rights Offense);
and
(10) the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3B1.1 (Aggravating
Role) and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in 21
U.S.C. § 848.
Id. § 4C1.1(a) (emphasis added).
3
Case 3:21-cr-00074-KAC-JEM Document 62 Filed 06/25/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 367
Here, Defendant is ineligible for a reduction under Section 4C1.1 because she received a
criminal history point “from Chapter Four, Part A.” See U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(1). Defendant’s
prior convictions yielded one (1) criminal history point [Doc. 19 ¶ 98]. Therefore, Defendant
does not satisfy all of the requirements of Section 4C1.1. See U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(1).
Because Defendant received a criminal history point, she is not eligible for a sentence reduction
under Section 3582(c)(2) and Part B of Amendment 821.
4
Case 3:21-cr-00074-KAC-JEM Document 62 Filed 06/25/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 368
File and source
- File
- 62.pdf
- Size
- 186,972 bytes
- SHA-256
- 615a4a80f5e47ed702703f2348a617a881fbcf777bb6c97af60f3141689fe82c
- Our copy
- 62.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.