USA v. Purdy

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America, 	Crim. No. 20-77 (SRN/BRT)
Plaintiff,
v. 	ORDER
Jeffrey Colin Purdy,
Defendant
LeeAnn Bell, Office of the United States Attorney, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415, for Plaintiff United States of America
Jeffrey Colin Purdy, VOA, 2825 E. Lake St., Minneapolis, MN 55406, Pro Se Defendant
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Pending before the court is Defendant Jeffrey Colin Purdy’s Pro Se Rule 36 Motion
[Doc. No. 396] in which he seeks to correct the Court’s Order of April 30, 2026 [Doc. No.
395].
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 allows for the correction of clerical errors in
a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or the correction of an error in the record
arising from oversight or omission. Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. There is nothing to correct here.
As the Court has previously explained, and the Eighth Circuit has affirmed, Mr. Purdy is
not entitled to relief. 	(See Jan. 29, 2025 Order [Doc. No. 369], aff’d Feb. 26, 2025 8th Cir.
J. [Doc. No. 383]; Apr. 30, 2026 Order.)
CASE 0:20-cr-00077-SRN-BRT Doc. 397 Filed 05/07/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Mr. Purdy sought a retroactive adjustment of his criminal history category based on
Amendment 821 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, even though at the time he filed the
motion, he had completed serving the custodial portion of his 60-month original sentence.
(Def.’s Amend. 821 Mot. [Doc. No. 347].)
In general, once a sentence is imposed, it remains final and undisturbed. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(b). Congress created a limited exception to this general rule for circumstances in
which the U.S. Sentencing Commission retroactively amends the applicable guidelines:
[I]n 	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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon
motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its
own 	motion, 	the 	court 	may 	reduce 	the 	term 	of 	imprisonment, 	after
considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are
applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added).
Amendment 821 changed the application of the Sentencing Guidelines with respect
to offenders who either (a) earned criminal history “status points” for committing their
offenses while under supervision for a criminal justice sentence, or (b) had zero criminal
history points at the time of sentencing. 	See U.S.S.G. amend. 821, Parts A & B. 	For
offenders who meet the requirements of Amendment 821, Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.10
governs eligibility for a sentence reduction. It generally authorizes a district court to reduce
a defendant’s sentence in any case in which a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment
and the guideline range applicable to the defendant “has subsequently been lowered as a
result” of a retroactively applicable amendment to the Guidelines.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. A
CASE 0:20-cr-00077-SRN-BRT Doc. 397 Filed 05/07/26 Page 2 of 4

3
defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction if the retroactively applicable amendment
“does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). 	After Mr. Purdy had been released from the custodial portion of his
sentence, he requested a recalculation and reclassification of his criminal history based on
the change regarding status points, arguing that application of Amendment 821 placed him
in a lower criminal history category.
Section 3582(c)(2) makes clear that the scope of available relief for a qualifying
Sentencing Commission change such as Amendment 821 is a reduced sentence. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). 	Retroactive relief is unavailable under Amendment 821 for a completed
sentence. 	(Jan. 29, 2025 Order at 1) (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(C) (“Reduction in
Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)”) (“In
no event may the reduced term of imprisonment be less than the term of imprisonment the
defendant has already served.”) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Vazquez-
Serrano, No. 16-CR-3049-WJ, 2025 WL 1827263, at *2 (D.N.M. July 2, 2025) (denying
relief based on Amendment 821 because defendant was not currently incarcerated for either
of his federal convictions and “an inmate released from prison can no longer seek refuge
in § 3582(c)(2).”); United States v. Avalos-Gallegos, No. CR 5:19-019-DCR, 2024 WL
1403073, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 1, 2024) ([“Defendant] cannot benefit from the changes
effected by Amendment 821 . . . because he has completed serving his original custodial
sentence in that matter.”); United States v. Pitts, No. 2:16cr23-MHT, 2024 WL 195957, at
*1 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 18, 2024) (“[Defendant] is not eligible to receive a reduction in sentence
pursuant to Amendment 821 because he finished serving his custodial sentence in 2021,
CASE 0:20-cr-00077-SRN-BRT Doc. 397 Filed 05/07/26 Page 3 of 4

4
and granting a reduction would result in a sentence lower than what he has already served,
which is prohibited under the applicable guideline.”)
As the Court has previously explained, Mr. Purdy could not avail himself of the
change regarding status points because he had already served the custodial portion of his
original sentence at the time he sought relief under Amendment 821. 	The Eighth Circuit
has summarily affirmed this Court’s ruling on this issue. 	(8th Cir. J. [Doc. No. 383].)
Thus, Mr. Purdy is not entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to
correct a clerical error or error in the record resulting from oversight or omission because
there is no such error.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, and all the files, record, and proceedings
herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Pro Se Rule 36 Motion [Doc. No.
396] is DENIED.
Dated: May 7, 2026
s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:20-cr-00077-SRN-BRT Doc. 397 Filed 05/07/26 Page 4 of 4