USA v. Lee

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Travis James Lee,
Defendant.
No. CR-18-08319-PCT-DGC
ORDER
Defendant Travis Lee has filed a notice of eligibility for a sentence reduction under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Doc. 49. The government has filed a response in opposition.
Doc. 54. For reasons stated below, the Court will not reduce Defendant’s sentence.1
I. Background.
On July 23, 2017, while under the influence of alcohol, Defendant crashed and
rolled the truck he was driving, causing the deaths of two victims. Docs. 41 at 4-5, 45 at
6-7. On August 14, 2019, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of involuntary manslaughter
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1112. Docs. 31, 34. For purposes of sentencing, Defendant’s
1 In his plea agreement, Defendant waived “any right to file a motion for
modification of sentence, including under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).” Doc. 45 at 4-5. Defendant
filed the present notice to bring to the Court’s attention his facial eligibility for a sentence
reduction and the Court’s ability to reduce a sentence on its own motion. Doc. 49 at 1 n.1;
see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Black, No. CR-18-08344-001-PCT-DJH, 2024
WL 5158603, at *2 (D. Ariz. Dec. 18, 2024).
Case 3:18-cr-08319-DGC Document 56 Filed 05/26/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
total offense level was 21 with a criminal history category III, which was based on 5
criminal history points, including 2 “status points” under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). Docs. 41
¶¶ 35-40, 47 at 1. This resulted in an initial guideline range of 46-57 months. Doc. 41
¶ 78. In January 2020, the Court granted the government’s motion for a 5-level upward
variance and sentenced Defendant to 96 months in prison – one month below the high end
of the guideline range with the upward variance. Docs. 40, 43, 46.
II. Discussion.
A district court may reduce a defendant’s prison sentence if the sentence was “based
on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission”
and if, “after considering the factors set forth in [§] 3553(a),” the court determines that a
“reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The parties agree that Defendant is statutorily
eligible for a potential sentence reduction based on Amendment 821 to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines, which eliminated the “status points” previously awarded under
former U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) for individuals with 6 or fewer criminal history points. Docs.
49 at 2-4, 55 at 3-4; see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). Under Amendment 821 and its elimination
of status points, Defendant would have had a criminal history category of II with a
guideline range of 41-51 months. Defendant seeks a 10-month reduction in sentence,
explaining that an 86-month sentence would be proportional to his amended guideline
range of 41-51 months (one month below the high end of the amended guidelines range
after a 5-level upward variance). Doc. 49 at 2 & n.2.
The government opposes any reduction in sentence based on the § 3553(a) factors
and Defendant’s significant criminal history, severe alcohol problem and drug use, and
multiple disciplinary infractions while incarcerated. Doc. 54 at 4-6. Defendant has filed
no reply, and simply states in his notice that an 86-month sentence “is consistent with the
stated policy of the Sentencing Commission as well as the § 3553(a) factors.” Doc. 49 at 4.
Defendant’s current projected release date is September 12, 2026. See Fed. BOP,
Find an Inmate, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited May 21, 2026). Thus, the
Case 3:18-cr-08319-DGC Document 56 Filed 05/26/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
requested sentence reduction would result in a time-served sentence and Defendant’s
immediate release from prison. See Doc. 55 at 28.
The Court shares the government’s concerns about granting Defendant an early
release. Defendant’s numerous encounters with law enforcement arising out of his alcohol
abuse date back to August 2000, when he was 18 years old. Doc. 41 ¶¶ 45-50. In 2005,
Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter after shooting the victim in the
stomach with a .22-caliber rifle. Id. ¶ 37. While incarcerated for that offense, Defendant
incurred 26 disciplinary infractions including drug use, assault, threating other inmates,
and possessing weapons. Id. Only ten days after his release from custody, Defendant killed
the two victims in this case when he rolled his vehicle while driving with a blood alcohol
content of 0.24. Id. ¶¶ 1-7. And before his detention in this case, he was arrested three
more times for firing a weapon, public intoxication, and driving under the influence of
alcohol and fleeing law enforcement. Id. ¶¶ 41-43. While incarcerated this time,
Defendant had a disciplinary infraction for assault. Doc. 55 at 27-28, ¶ 30. The Court
concludes that it must protect the public through the end of Defendant’s sentence.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s notice of eligibility and request for a sentence
reduction (Doc. 49) is denied.
Dated this 26th day of May, 2026.
Case 3:18-cr-08319-DGC Document 56 Filed 05/26/26 Page 3 of 3