USA v. JENT, et al

AO 247 (Rev. 03/19) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 	Page 1 of 2 (Page 2 Not for Public Disclosure)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
__________ District of __________
United States of America )
)
)
)
)
)
v.
Case No:
USM No:
Date of Original Judgment:
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 	u the defendant u the Director of the Bureau of Prisons u 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:
u DENIED. 	u GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in
the last judgment issued) of 	months is reduced to 	.
(See Page 2 for additional parts. Complete Parts I and II 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:
Effective Date: (if different from order date)
Southern District of Indiana
BRIAN JENT 	4:18-cr-00010-SEB-VTW-1
16435-028
11/13/2023
✔
✔
11/13/2023
02/06/2026	_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Case 4:18-cr-00010-SEB-VTW Document 568 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 4:18-cr-00010-SEB-VTW
)
BRIAN JENT, 	) 	-01
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Brian Jent's Motion to Reduce Sentence, filed
pursuant to USSG Amendments 821 and 829 [Dkt. 721]. The Government has filed its response
in opposition to the motion.
Being duly advised, the Court hereby DENIES the motion. Petitioner is ineligible for a
reduced sentence based on Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines for the reason that
applying the Amendment would not result in a reduction of Petitioner's original guideline range.
USSG § 1B1.10. Amendment 829 is not retroactive and thus has no application here.
Pursuant to the holding in Dillon v. U.S., 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010), and the requirements
set out in the applicable statutes (i.e., 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)) as well as the Sentencing Guidelines
(§§ 4A1.1(a) and (e)), no change effectuated by Amendment 821 to the Guidelines applies to
Petitioner because his original guideline range would not be reduced, thus making him ineligible
for a reduced sentence. To qualify for relief under § 3582(c)(2), a petitioner's sentencing range
must be lowered by the Amendment.
Part A of Amendment 821 alters the status points provision regarding the criminal history
(USSG § 4A1.1(e)) directing the addition of 1 point (rather than 2 under the original guidelines
Case 4:18-cr-00010-SEB-VTW Document 568 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
formulation), if the defendant received 7 criminal history points and committed the offense while
under criminal justice sentence as specified. A person who had six criminal history points or fewer
receives no status points.
Part B of Amendment 821 allows for a 2-level reduction in offense level for (many)
offenders who had zero criminal history points. There are several exceptions to eligibility for this
reduction, one of which is that he must meet all of § 4C1.1's criteria for eligibility.
Petitioner Jent pled guilty pursuant to Rule 11 (C)(1)(c) Fed.R.Crim.P. to an Information
charging 	him 	with 	conspiracy 	to 	possess 	with 	intent 	to 	distribute 	and 	to 	distribute
methamphetamine, which included an agreed upon sentence of 180 months. His total offense level
was 35 and he was awarded 15 criminal history points. His resulting guidelines range was 292-
365 months; the statutory maximum sentence was 20 years. 	He was sentenced to 180 months,
consistent with the 11 (C)(1)(c) agreement. 	The sentencing guideline computation included no
status points. Thus, even after applying § 4A1.1(e), he would have the same number of criminal
history points and his sentencing guidelines range would remain unchanged. 	Accordingly, the
Amendment does not affect his overall sentence. As previously noted, to be eligible for relief, the
sentencing range must be lowered by application of the amendment. His motion for reduction of
sentence under Part A of Amendment 821 must therefore be denied. (Part B does not apply because
of his 15 criminal history points.)
As for a sentence reduction for youthful offenders who were 25 years of age or younger at
the time of the offense, pursuant to Amendment 829, that Amendment does not apply retroactively,
making Petitioner ineligible for a reduction on this basis.
In any event, the Court also concludes that based on the §3553 factors, no reduction is
warranted.
Case 4:18-cr-00010-SEB-VTW Document 568 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
The Motion to Reduce Sentence is, accordingly, DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:_________________
Distribution:
Counsel of Record via CM/ECF
Brian Jent
Reg. No. 16435-028
FCI Hazelton
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 460
Bruceton Mills, MV 26525
2/6/2026	_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Case 4:18-cr-00010-SEB-VTW Document 568 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>