Criminal Defense Lawyers

Case Studies on Maximizing Sentence Reductions Under Amendment 821 Retroactivity

Case Studies on Maximizing Sentence Reductions Under Amendment 821 Retroactivity

Amendment 821 to the federal sentencing guidelines, which goes into effect November 1, 2023, provides an opportunity for thousands of incarcerated individuals to get their sentences reduced. This article looks at case studies and strategies for maximizing sentence reductions under the retroactive application of Amendment 821, which was approved by the U.S. Sentencing Commission on August 24, 2023.

Overview of Amendment 821

Amendment 821 creates a new section 4C1.1 in the sentencing guidelines that provides a two-level decrease from the offense level for defendants who:

• Received zero criminal history points under Chapter Four, Part A of the guidelines, and
• Whose offense did not involve certain aggravating factors like terrorism, violence, firearms, etc.

This essentially benefits offenders with no prior convictions who committed low-level or non-violent crimes. The Commission estimates around 11,495 inmates will benefit under Part A of the amendment, with average sentence reductions of 11.7% 

.Part B of Amendment 821 reduces sentences for certain drug offenses by changing how “stacking” enhancements are applied. This will help around 7,272 inmates get lower sentences

.The changes apply retroactively starting February 1, 2024 to allow currently incarcerated individuals to seek sentence reductions

. Judges can consider motions for reduced sentences under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).

Case Studies on Maximizing Sentence Reductions

Here are some examples of how to maximize sentence reductions under Amendment 821 retroactivity:

Non-Violent, First-Time Offender

John Doe was convicted of wire fraud in 2019 for a $50,000 scheme with no prior record. He was sentenced to 30 months under the guidelines.Under Amendment 821, John’s offense level could be reduced by 2 levels since he had zero criminal history points and it was a non-violent offense. His range drops from 30-37 months to 24-30 months.John should file a motion for resentencing in early 2024 citing Amendment 821. His lawyer can argue for a reduced sentence at the bottom of the new range – 24 months – which would cut his term by 6 months.

Low-Level Drug Offense with Enhancements

Jane Doe was convicted in 2018 of conspiracy to distribute 500g of cocaine. She had one prior drug conviction. Jane’s guidelines were initially 41-51 months based on a level 23 offense and criminal history III.But Jane received a 2-level gun enhancement and 2 more levels for maintaining a premises for drug sales. This increased her offense level to 27 and range to 70-87 months. The judge sentenced her to 80 months.Under Amendment 821, the stacking changes mean Jane’s enhancements would now only increase her level by 3 instead of 4 levels. Her new offense level would be 26, reducing her range to 63-78 months.Jane’s lawyer should file for resentencing citing Amendment 821. They could argue for a reduced term at the bottom of the new range, 63 months, cutting 17 months off her sentence.

Career Offender with Overstated Criminal History

Bob Smith was convicted of bank robbery in 2017 and sentenced as a career offender to 151 months due to two prior drug felonies. However, Bob’s first offense was a low-level sale when he was only 18.Under Amendment 821, Bob’s lawyer can file for resentencing and argue that his criminal history is overstated. They can present mitigating factors about his first conviction and youthful age under Pepper v. United States. The judge could decide Bob should not be sentenced as a career offender and reduce his term under Booker discretion.While Bob may not directly qualify for a lower range under Amendment 821, it offers a new opportunity to challenge career offender status and overstated criminal history for a reduced sentence.

Additional Strategies

• File for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) citing COVID-19 risks and Amendment 821 as extraordinary reasons for a reduction. Judges have discretion to reduce sentences even lower than the amended guidelines
  4

  .

• For drug offenses, argue that Amendment 821’s changes along with the First Step Act’s reforms warrant a greater reduction. Point to positive rehabilitation efforts in prison as justification.
• If denied resentencing under Amendment 821 initially, be prepared to appeal and highlight legal errors in the district court’s reasoning. Appellate courts can order resentencing if the judge misapplies the retroactive guidelines.

The examples show how Amendment 821 creates new possibilities to revisit old sentences and advocate for reductions. But it requires carefully crafting arguments under the retroactive provisions and being willing to litigate resentencing motions and appeals. Consulting experienced criminal defense attorneys is key to maximizing results under Amendment 821 through diligent and thoughtful litigation.

Citing Relevant Laws and Precedents

Here are some of the main laws, sentencing guidelines, and court rulings that provide important context for Amendment 821 retroactivity and resentencing motions:

• 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) – provides courts authority to reduce sentences if the applicable guidelines range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. This allows resentencing under retroactive guideline amendments.
• U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 – policy statement authorizing courts to reduce sentences based on amendments designated as retroactive by the Commission. Specifies sentencing limitations.
• Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) – Supreme Court ruling that found resentencing under retroactive guidelines is not a full de novo or plenary resentencing. Courts can only reduce within the amended range absent exceptions.
• Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) – Supreme Court held that courts can consider post-sentencing rehabilitation and other mitigating factors under Booker discretion when resentencing defendants under retroactive guidelines.
• United States v. Taylor, 778 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2015) – appellate case reinforcing that courts have authority to impose sentences below the amended guideline range based on Booker discretion and § 3553(a) factors.

Citing key precedents like these can help strengthen arguments for lower sentences under Amendment 821 and convince courts they have legal authority to go below the amended range. Defense lawyers should be well-versed in these resentencing provisions when filing motions.

Defense Strategies and Arguments

Here are some of the main arguments and strategies the defense can raise when seeking lower sentences under Amendment 821 retroactivity:

• Emphasize positive rehabilitation and evidence of maturity since original sentencing – Courts can consider post-sentencing conduct under Pepper even if defendant already served much of the sentence.
• Note family circumstances, health conditions, and COVID-19 risks justifying compassionate release or a time-served sentence.
• For career offenders, challenge criminal history as overstated or argue intervening changes in law make predicate offenses no longer qualify as career offender predicates.
• Assert the First Step Act’s reforms call for lower sentences in drug cases on policy grounds, especially for non-violent offenders.
• Dispute any facts related to crime of conviction that were used to enhance the guidelines at sentencing – Arguments barred earlier may be allowed at resentencing.
• Highlight sentencing disparities and demographic data showing overly harsh impact on minorities to argue for variance under § 3553(a).
• Cite evidence of flaws in criminal justice system like racial bias, prosecutorial overcharging, and excesses of mass incarceration to justify lower sentences.
• For denied motions, appeal citing abuse of discretion or legal errors in district court’s application of retroactivity provisions and sentencing law.

Crafting individually tailored arguments and narratives, backed by evidence, gives defense lawyers the best chance to persuade judges to go below even the reduced guideline ranges under Amendment 821.

Impact on Federal Prison Population

Allowing Amendment 821 to apply retroactively is projected to have a significant impact on the federal prison population according to the Sentencing Commission and advocacy groups:

• The Commission estimates around 18,767 inmates could get reduced sentences, with average reductions of 17 months.
• This could lead to earlier release for over 6,000 federal prisoners based on the amendment’s retroactive application according to FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums).
• The Sentencing Project predicts Amendment 821 retroactivity could reduce the federal prison population by 3% and save taxpayers $160 million in lower incarceration costs.
• Reduced sentences and earlier releases will help ease overcrowding in the federal Bureau of Prisons system currently operating at 13% over capacity according to the Justice Department Inspector General.
• Groups like FAMM and the American Civil Liberties Union argue Amendment 821 represents an important step in reducing excessive federal sentences, but more reforms are needed.

While actual numbers remain to be seen, Amendment 821 retroactivity stands to benefit thousands of inmates and reduce overpopulated federal prisons. But it will require defense lawyers, advocates and courts ensuring it gets applied fairly and fully as intended by the Sentencing Commission.

Conclusion

Amendment 821’s retroactive application offers real opportunities for second looks at unduly harsh sentences from the past and providing incarcerated individuals a chance to return to their families and communities sooner. But realizing its promise will depend on zealous advocacy and litigation under the amendment’s provisions. This includes carefully selecting potential cases, crafting creative and compassionate arguments, citing key precedents, and being willing to fight denials through appeals. Ensuring judges use their full discretion when resentencing under Amendment 821 can help maximize its impact and reduce excessive punishments. The defense bar will need to be proactive and vigilant to guarantee the amendment’s retroactivity lives up to its goals of fairness, proportionality and redemption.