USA v. Torrez et al

- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ryan Scott Franklin,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:16-cr-00089
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
[¶1] 	THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a what has been styled a Motion to Reduce
Sentence filed by the Defendant on May 14, 2024. Doc. No. 1076. The Federal Public Defendant
withdrew from representing the Defendant because the Defendant admitted he is ineligible for a
sentencing reduction under Amendment 821 but simply requested to have one point removed. Doc.
No. 1078. The United States filed a Response arguing the Defendant is ineligible for a sentencing
reduction under Amendment 821 because the Defendant is a career offender.
[¶2] 	The Defendant has not made a request for sentencing reduction under Amendment 821 and
provides no basis for the Court removing one criminal history point. After a careful review of the
record, the Court concludes there is no basis to reduce his criminal history by one point as he
requests.
[¶3] 	Even if he made is request pursuant to Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines, his request would fail. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a defendant may seek a
sentence reduction if he has “been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission[.]” The Defendant’s
Motion fails under both Parts A and B of Amendment 821.
Case 3:16-cr-00089-PDW Document 1099 Filed 06/26/24 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
[¶4] 	In Part A to Amendment 821, the United States Sentencing Commission made changes to
the “status points” provision which are criminal history points added when a defendant committed
the instant offense while under another criminal justice sentence. The retroactive application of
Part A does not affect his criminal history category of VI because the Defendant was a career
offender under USSG § 4B1.1(b). See Doc. No. 806, ¶ 59. He would have been in criminal history
category VI regardless of the two additional status points. Therefore, Part A to Amendment 821 is
inapplicable.
[¶5] 	In Part B, Subpart 1 to Amendment 821, the Sentencing Commission created a two-level
reduction in the total offense level for defendants receiving zero criminal history points and whose
offense did not involve certain criteria. Part B likewise affords no relief. The retroactive application
of the two-level reduction in USSG § 4C1.1 only applies when a defendant “did not receive any
criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A.” USSG § 4C1.1(a)(1). Because the Defendant
had eleven scoreable criminal history points (Doc. No. 806, ¶ 56), he is not a zero-point offender
under USSG § 4C1.1 and is ineligible for a sentencing reduction under Part B of Amendment 821.
[¶6] 	The record demonstrates that Amendment 821 does not apply to the Defendant. Therefore,
the Defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly,
the Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence is DENIED.
[¶7] 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED June 26, 2024.
Daniel M. Traynor, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:16-cr-00089-PDW Document 1099 Filed 06/26/24 Page 2 of 2