USA v. Williams et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVORIE JAWON WILLIAMS,
Defendant.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:21-cr-194-1
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Now pending before the Court are Defendant’s motion for modification or reduction of
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines (ECF No. 103) and the parties’ Joint Motion for Sentence Modification (ECF No. 109).
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motions.1
I. 	BACKGROUND
In 2022, Defendant pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition
(Count One) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking (Count Three) (ECF
No. 65). 	On July 14, 2022, this Court sentenced Defendant to 20 months’ imprisonment as to
Count One and 60 months’ imprisonment as to Count Three, to run consecutively (ECF No. 90).
After Defendant’s Sentencing, in August 2023, the United States Sentencing Commission
submitted 	to 	Congress 	proposed 	changes 	to 	the 	federal 	sentencing 	guidelines, 	including
1 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 requires that a defendant be present at “sentencing,” see
Rule 43(a)(3), but excludes from that requirement a proceeding that “involves the correction or
reduction of sentence under . . . 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c),” Rule 43(b)(4).
Case 1:21-cr-00194-JMB ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of
6

2
Amendment 821, which would have retroactive effect. 	On November 1, 2023, when Congress
failed to modify or reject Amendment 821, it became effective. Part A of Amendment 821 limits
the criminal history impact of “Status Points” in Sentencing Guidelines § 4A. 	United States
Sentencing Guideline (U.S.S.G.) § 4A1.1. 	Part B of Amendment 821 permits a two-level
reduction for defendants without any criminal history points from § 4A and an instant offense
without specified aggravating factors. U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1.
Defendant now seeks retroactive application of Amendment 821 to the Court’s Judgment
of Sentence. The Probation Office prepared a Sentence Modification Report (“SMR”), which was
filed under restricted access (ECF No. 108). 	The parties filed a Joint Motion for Sentence
Modification (ECF No. 109), and Defendant filed a Supplement (ECF No. 110).
II. 	ANALYSIS
A. 	Motion Standard
A “court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except … in
the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 	18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c) establishes a “two-step inquiry.” United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d
1098, 1107 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010)). First,
a court must “determine that a reduction is consistent with [United States Sentencing Guideline
(U.S.S.G.)] § 1B1.10,” id., which provides in pertinent part the following:
In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment, and the guideline
range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an
amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (d) below, the court may
reduce 	the 	defendant’s 	term 	of 	imprisonment 	as 	provided 	by 	18 	U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), any such reduction in the
defendant’s term of imprisonment shall be consistent with this policy statement.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1).
Case 1:21-cr-00194-JMB ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of
6

3
Second, the court must “consider whether the authorized reduction is warranted, either in
whole or in part, according to the factors set forth in § 3553(a)[.]” Jones, supra. The § 3553(a)
factors are: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of
the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate deterrence
to criminal conduct, protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and provide the
defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional
treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the applicable
sentencing guidelines range; (5) any pertinent policy statement; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 	See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a).
“[C]ourts need not issue a written opinion engaging in a point-by-point rebuttal of every
argument for every sentence-modification motion; [r]ather, they can rely on their ‘professional
judgment’ about the amount of information they need to include in an order.” 	United States v.
Davis-Malone, 128 F.4th 829, 834 (6th Cir. 2025) (citing Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S.
109, 116 (2018), and United States v. Goodwin, 87 F.4th 321, 327 (6th Cir. 2023)).
B. 	Discussion
Part A of Amendment 821, which now appears in the guidelines at § 4A1.1(e), limits the
criminal history impact of “status points.” 	See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). 	Under the Guidelines in
effect when the Court sentenced Defendant, § 4A1.1(d) added two criminal history points if the
defendant committed the offense of conviction while under a criminal justice sentence, including
probation, parole, or supervised release. 	Amendment 821 moved the relevant provision to
Case 1:21-cr-00194-JMB ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page 3 of
6

4
§ 4A1.1(e) and reduced the criminal history point from two to one or zero, depending on how
many criminal history points the defendant scored under subsections (a) through (d). A defendant
with less than seven criminal history points receives no additional status points under § 4A1.1.
Defendant argues that his sentence should be reduced because his presentence report
included “Status Points” in the calculation of his criminal history score (ECF No. 103 at
PageID.358). The author of the Sentence Modification Report posits that Defendant is eligible for
a sentence reduction and recommends a reduced sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment on Count
One followed by a 60-month consecutive sentence on Count Three (ECF No. 108 at PageID.390).
The parties agree that Defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction and request a sentence of 16
months’ imprisonment on Count One, with Count Three continuing to require a 60-month
consecutive sentence (ECF No. 109 at PageID.392).
At the time of sentencing, Defendant received two criminal history points based on his
prior offenses and received two status points because he committed the instant offense while under
a criminal justice sentence, for a total criminal history score of four and a criminal history category
of III (ECF No. 108 at PageID.388–389). Applying Amendment 821, Defendant should receive
the two criminal history points for his prior offenses; however, he should receive no additional
status points. A total of two criminal history points results in a criminal history category of II. See
U.S. Sent’g Guidelines, Sent’g Table. Defendant’s total offense level of nineteen and a criminal
history category of II results in an amended guideline range of 33 to 41 months’ imprisonment.
Thus, Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.
Next, the Court determines that a sentence reduction is consistent with the applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 	See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1) (where the
Case 1:21-cr-00194-JMB ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page 4 of
6

5
“guideline range applicable” to the defendant “has subsequently been lowered as a result of an
amendment to the Guidelines Manual . . . the court may reduce the defendant’s term of
imprisonment”).
Additionally, the Court finds that a reduction of Defendant’s sentence is warranted under
the factors set forth in § 3553(a). 	The Court has considered the nature and circumstances of
Defendant’s offense and his history and characteristics. The Court has also considered the need
for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,
to provide just punishment for the offense, to afford adequate deterrence, to protect the public from
further crimes of Defendant, and to provide Defendant with needed education and training, medical
care, or other correctional treatment. 	Further, the Court has considered the kinds of sentences
available, the sentencing range, the need to avoid unwarranted disparities, and the need to provide
restitution to any victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Finally, the Court has considered the danger
to the public as the result of any reduction in Defendant’s sentence, the seriousness of Defendant’s
offense, and the need to protect the public.
The Court has also considered Defendant’s post-sentencing conduct. While in BOP
custody, Defendant has not received any disciplinary reports. 	He has a low risk classification
level. According to the SMR, Defendant completed the requirements for a GED and participated
in multiple education courses. He has also held a number of work assignment positions (ECF No.
108 at PageID.389).
Accordingly, after considering § 1B1.10 and the relevant § 3553(a) factors, the Court finds
that a reduction in Defendant’s sentence is appropriate pursuant to Amendment 821. Defendant
previously received a sentence 17 months below the bottom of the guideline range as to Count
Case 1:21-cr-00194-JMB ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page 5 of
6

6
One, and thus, an appropriate reduced sentence would be 16 months as to Count One, which is 17
months below the amended guideline range. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for modification or reduction of
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines (ECF No. 103) and the parties’ Joint Motion for Sentence Modification (ECF No. 109)
are GRANTED. 	Defendant’s sentence is REDUCED to 16 months’ imprisonment as to Count
One and 60 months’ imprisonment as to Count Three, to run consecutively. All other terms and
conditions of this Court’s July 14, 2022 Judgment remain the same.
Dated: November 26, 2025 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
Case 1:21-cr-00194-JMB ECF No. 111, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page 6 of
6