USA v. Tilton et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 21-05032-02-CR-SW-MDH
)
AMY KAY THOMAS, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for a Sentence Reduction pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3742(e). The Government has filed suggestions in opposition. The Defendant has failed
to file a reply and the time to do so has elapsed. The motion is now ripe for adjudication on the
merits.
On July 29, 2021, Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit kidnapping, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) and (c) (Count One); aiding and abetting kidnapping
resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1) and 2 (Count Two); aiding and
abetting the use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence resulting in murder, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and (j)(1) and (2) (Count Three); and aiding and abetting beign
a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and 2 (Count
Four). (Doc. 1).
The Defendant pleaded guilty to Counts One and Four pursuant to a plea agreement with
the Government. (Docs. 250–251). After pleading guilty, the parties stipulated to a supplement to
the plea agreement, which permitted the Defendant to seek a downward departure or variance
from 	the 	calculated 	Sentencing 	Guidelines 	range. 	(Doc. 	326). 	The 	revised 	Presentence
Case 3:21-cr-05032-MDH Document 395 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Investigative Report (“PSR”) calculated a total offense level of 43; a criminal history category of
VI; a statutory range of punishment of up to life imprisonment on Count One and up to 10 years
on Count Four; and an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of life imprisonment. (Doc. 303 ¶¶
42, 67–68, 123–124).
On April 18, 2024, this Court sentenced the Defendant to 240 months’ imprisonment, the
sentence requested by the Defendant and the Government. (Docs. 350–351). No appeal was
taken up by the Defendant. The Defendant now moves for a reduction in sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3742(e) based on post-sentencing rehabilitation. (Doc. 388).
18 U.S.C. § 3742 governs the process for how a defendant or the government can go
about requesting a review of a criminal sentence. The relevant parts of the statute state:
(a) Appeal by a defendant.--A defendant may file a notice of appeal in the
district court for review of an otherwise final sentence if the sentence--
(1) was imposed in violation of law;
(2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing
guidelines; or
(3) is greater than the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range to
the extent that the sentence includes a greater fine or term of imprisonment,
probation, or supervised release than the maximum established in the guideline
range, or includes a more limiting condition of probation or supervised release
under section 3563(b)(6) or (b)(11) than the maximum established in the
guideline range; or
(4) was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and
is plainly unreasonable.
(d) Record on review.--If a notice of appeal is filed in the district court pursuant
to subsection (a) or (b), the clerk shall certify to the court of appeals--
(1) that portion of the record in the case that is designated as pertinent by either
of the parties;
(2) the presentence report; and
Case 3:21-cr-05032-MDH Document 395 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 4

3
(3) the information submitted during the sentencing proceeding.
(e) Consideration.--Upon review of the record, the court of appeals shall
determine whether the sentence--
(1) was imposed in violation of law;
(2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing
guidelines;
(3) is outside the applicable guideline range, and
(A) the district court failed to provide the written statement of reasons
required by section 3553(c);
(B) the sentence departs from the applicable guideline range based on a
factor that--
(i) does not advance the objective set forth in section 3553(a)(2); or
(ii) is not authorized under section 3553(b); or
(iii) is not justified by the facts of the case; or
(C) the sentence departs to an unreasonable degree from the applicable
guidelines range, having regard for the factors to be considered in imposing
a sentence, as set forth in section 3553(a) of this title and the reasons for the
imposition of the particular sentence, as stated by the district court pursuant
to the provisions of section 3553(c); or
(4) was imposed for an offense for which there is no applicable sentencing
guideline and is plainly unreasonable.
18 U.S.C. §§ 3742(a), (d) and (e).
Here, the Defendant does not argue that her sentence was in violation of the law; was
imposed as an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines; is greater than the applicable
guidelines range; or was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is
plainly unreasonable. Rather, the Defendant states that her “charge code does not qualify for [the
First Step Act]” and “humbly asking the court to please consider this motion.” (Doc. 388, page
1). As the Defendant does not challenge her sentence based upon what is enumerated in 18
Case 3:21-cr-05032-MDH Document 395 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 4

4
U.S.C. § 3742, her motion for a sentence reduction based on that statute fails. For the reasons
stated, Defendant’s Motion for a Reduction in Sentence based on 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	February 10, 2026 	/s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:21-cr-05032-MDH Document 395 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 4