USA v. Busby

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Criminal Action No. 18-00021-KD
)
JAQUAIL D. BUSBY, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
This action is before the Court on Defendant Jaquail D. Busby’s motion for modification
of his sentence (doc. 19). Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion is
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
I. Background
Busby pled guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of an Information charging carjacking and
possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. He was sentenced to a total term of 240
months with
Said term consists of 30 months as to Count One in 1:18-00021 and Count Two in 1:17-
00144; to run concurrently, and 150 months as to Count Two in 1:18-00021 to run
consecutively with Count One in 1:18-00021 and Count Two in 1:17-00144, and 60
months as to Count Three in 1:17-00144; to run consecutively with all listed counts.
(Doc. 15).1
Busby is now incarcerated at USP Florence High, a high security penitentiary in
Florence, Colorado. His estimated release date is June 23, 2035.
II. Motion for modification of sentence
1 In Criminal Action No. 17-00144-KD, Busby and his co-defendant were indicted for
conspiracy to commit carjacking; carjacking; using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during a
crime of violence; conspiracy to commit kidnapping; kidnapping; and Busby was indicted for
prohibited person (felon) in possession of a firearm.
Case 1:18-cr-00021-KD Doc# 20 Filed 03/20/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID# <pageID>

2
Busby moves the Court to either reduce his sentence to time served or place him on
probation or parole for the remainder of his sentence. Busby appears to ask if he has served
enough time in prison to be eligible for a reduction. Busby did not identify any specific grounds
for a reduction of sentence to time served. Instead, he appears to believe that at a certain point in
time, inmates may ask for a reduction or probation.
Once a sentence is imposed, the “authority of a district court to modify an imprisonment
sentence is narrowly limited by statute.” United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1194-95 (11th
Cir. 2010); United States v. Shaw, 711 Fed. Appx. 552, 554-55 (11th Cir. 2017) (same).
“Generally, a court ‘may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed’ except as
set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). See United States v. Pubien, 805 Fed. Appx. 727, 729 (11th Cir.
Feb. 25, 2020) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)).
Subsection 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) provides for a reduction of sentence where “extraordinary
and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction”. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). However,
these reductions much be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission” (Id.). Section 1B1.13 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is the Policy Statement
applicable to § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Policy Statement provides examples of extraordinary and
compelling reasons for a reduction of sentence. However, the number of years that Busby has
served, standing alone, is not an extraordinary and compelling reason which would qualify him
for consideration of a reduction of sentence. Subsection 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii) provides for a
reduction in sentence where the defendant is at least 70 years old, and other conditions are met.
(Id.). Since Busby is 33 years old, he cannot obtain relief under this statute.
Subsection 3582(c)(2) provides for modification of a sentence “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[.]” Effective November 1, 2023, the
Case 1:18-cr-00021-KD Doc# 20 Filed 03/20/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID# <pageID>

3
United States Sentencing Commission enacted Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines. The Commission deemed that Part A and Part B Subpart 1 of the Amendment apply
retroactively. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). See United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 909 (11th
Cir. 2003) (“[A]mendments claimed in [18 U.S.C.] § 3582(c)(2) motions may be retroactively
applied solely where expressly listed under § 1B1.10([d]).”) (emphasis in original). Relevant
here, Part A amends the method by which “status points” – criminal history points applied when
a defendant “committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence, including
probation, parole, supervised, release, imprisonment, work release or escape status” – are
calculated. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). Application of Part A may lower the defendant’s criminal
history category, and consequently, may lower the defendant’s sentencing guidelines range.
Busby was given 2 status points because he committed the instant offense while on
probation following a state court conviction (doc. 7, p. 13, PSIR). His prior convictions resulted
in a subtotal criminal history score of 6. With a total of 8 points, his criminal history category
was IV. Based upon a total offense level of 26 and a criminal history category of IV, his
guidelines range was 92 to 115 months as to Count 1.
Under Part A of Amendment 821, a person who had six or less criminal history points,
would receive a two-point reduction of their status points. Thus, Busby’s criminal history points
are reduced to 6. Applying the Sentencing Table found at Ch. 5, Pt. A, of the Guidelines
Manual, his criminal history category is reduced to III. With a total offense level of 26 and a
criminal history category of III, his amended sentencing guidelines range is 78 to 97 months as
to Count 1. However, as to Count 1, the Court imposed a sentence of 30 months which is lower
than the amended sentencing guidelines range. Thus, Busby is not entitled to any reduction of
his sentence based on this amendment to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1.
Subsection 3582(c)(1)(B) provides for modification of a sentence if “expressly permitted
by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure”. Busby has not presented
Case 1:18-cr-00021-KD Doc# 20 Filed 03/20/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID# <pageID>

4
the Court with any statute that would authorize a reduction or modification of his sentence, and
the United States has not filed a motion pursuant to Rule 35(b).
Also, Rule 36 provides that the district court "may at any time correct a clerical error in a
judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from
oversight or omission." Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. However, Busby does not argue that there has been
any clerical error in his judgment, order, or record.
Since the relief Busby seeks is not available under the statute, sentencing guidelines, or
the rules, the Court lacks jurisdiction to modify his sentence.
DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of March 2025.
s / Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:18-cr-00021-KD Doc# 20 Filed 03/20/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID# <pageID>