USA v. Atchley et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
UNITED STATES 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	Criminal No. 3:23-CR-30009-002
ALLEN RAY THOMPSON 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Allen Ray Thompson (Thompson) has filed a pro se Motion for Sentence Modification,
arguing that the November 1, 2025, Federal Sentencing Guideline Amendments provides relief on
his sentence. (ECF No. 80). The Government responded to the Motion on January 10, 2026. (ECF
No. 82). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), this matter was referred to
the undersigned for the purposes of making a report and recommendation. (ECF No. 81). For the
reasons explained below, it is recommended that the Motion be DENIED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Thompson was named in all four counts of an Indictment filed on September 19, 2023,
along with co-defendant, Anna Marie Atchley (Atchley), who was named in three counts. (ECF
No. 	1). 	Count 	One 	charged 	Thompson 	and 	Atchley 	with 	conspiracy 	to 	distribute
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846; Count Two charged the pair
with conspiracy to commit money laundering (in connection with their alleged conspiracy to
distribute methamphetamine) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i); Count Three charged
both Defendants with knowing possession with the intent to distribute more than 500 grams of
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii); and Court Four
charged Thompson with knowingly being a felon in knowing possession of firearms in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). (ECF No. 1).
Case 3:23-cr-30009-TLB Document 83 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On February 21, 2024, Thompson appeared before the undersigned and pled guilty to
Count Three (knowing possession with the intent to distribute more than 500 grams of
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii)) and consented to
a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture. (ECF Nos. 33-36). Chief U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks
adopted Thompson’s guilty plea the same day. (ECF No. 37).
Prior to sentencing, the Probation Office issued a Final Presentence Investigation Report
(“PSIR”). (ECF No. 47). 	After being held accountable for 118,348.52 kilograms of converted
drug weight, Thompson’s base offense level was calculated at 38 for purposes of the sentencing
guidelines’ analysis. (ECF No. 47 ⁋⁋ 73, 78) (USSG § 2D1.1(c)(1)). Two (2) points were added
pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) because Thompson possessed a dangerous weapon (a firearm),
and two (2) additional points added for obstruction of justice (fleeing from a law enforcement
officer) pursuant to USSG § 3C1.2. (ECF No. 47 ⁋⁋ 79, 82). 	Three (3) points were then deducted
to reflect Thompson’s acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a new base offense level of 39.
(ECF No. 47 ⁋⁋ 85-87). Thompson’s criminal history score was 9, establishing a criminal history
category IV. (ECF No. 47 ⁋ 97). Thompson faced a statutory minimum of ten (10) years in prison
with a statutory maximum of life in prison. (ECF No. 47 ⁋ 129). 	The advisory guideline range
was 360 months to life in prison. (ECF No. 47 ¶130). Thompson made no objections to the PSIR.
(ECF No. 45).
Judge Brooks conducted Thompson’s Sentencing Hearing on June 12, 2024, and at its
conclusion, sentenced Thompson to 300 months imprisonment, 5 years of supervised release, a
$1,900 fine and $100 special assessment, and entered a Final Order of Forfeiture. (ECF Nos. 50-
52). Thompson did not appeal his sentence. (ECF No. 54).
Case 3:23-cr-30009-TLB Document 83 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
II. 	THOMPSON’S MOTION FOR RELIEF
Identifying the 2025 Federal Sentencing Guideline Amendments which went into effect on
November 1, 2025, Thompson seeks relief under modified USSG § 2K2.1 related to firearm
offenses, arguing he is entitled to removal of the “automatic enhancement [he] was given for a
stolen firearm due to the lack of proof of my knowledge that the weapon was stolen or that the
weapon was reported stolen.” (ECF No. 80, p. 1). Thompson further contends entitlement to relief
under modified USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2) related to “intervening arrests” in criminal history
calculations, asking the Court to “reevaluate [his] criminal history points and subsequently the
criminal history category in which [he] was placed.” (ECF No. 80, p. 2).
III. 	UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE
As an initial matter, the Government observes that Thompson’s Motion for relief must be
construed as one pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Citing the general rule that federal courts
“may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed,” Dillon v. United States, 560
U.S. 817, 819 (2010), it is recognized by the Government that Section 3582(c)(2) provides a
limited exception for modification where “a sentencing range has subsequently been lowered by
the Sentencing Commission,” provided the reduction is consistent with the applicable policy
statement of the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Identifying the applicable policy
statement, the Government contends that permissible reductions under § 3582(c)(2) are limited to
those amendments listed in USSG § 1B1.10(d). See USSG § 1B1.10(a)(1).
Assuming – for the sake of discussion – that Thompson is generally referring to
Amendments 834 and 836 (amending parts of USSG § 2K2.1) and Amendment 832 (amending
USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2)), the Government says that neither of these amendments apply retroactively,
citing USSG § 1B1.10(d) and United States v. Walsh, 26 F.3d 75, 76-77 (8th Cir. 1994), and
Case 3:23-cr-30009-TLB Document 83 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
importantly argues that neither of these guidelines were applied to Thompson at sentencing.
Because neither USSG § 2K2.1 nor § 4A1.2(a)(2) were applied to Thompson, the Government
argues that recent amendments cannot offer relief.
IV. 	ANALYSIS
The undersigned does not believe that either of these amended Sentencing Guideline
provisions were applicable to Thompson, playing no role in calculation of his sentencing guideline
range. 	Thus, their amendment – even if retroactive – offers Thompson no relief. USSG
§1B1.10(a)(2)(A).
Moreover, the Court cannot locate any authority supporting that these Amendments are
retroactive. United States v. Kuot, 2025 WL 3079996 *1 (D. Nebraska, Nov. 3, 2025) (denying
relief because “none of these amendments have been applied retroactively yet.”). 	Amendments
832, 834, and 836 are not listed in USSG §1B1.10(d) (amended effective November 1, 2025). See
also United States v. Nunez, 2026 WL 361010 (D. Mexico, Jan. 6, 2026) (amendment is not among
the covered amendments listed in § 1B1.10(d) and thus has not been made retroactive by the
Sentencing Commission. United States v. Kleinknecht, 2025 WL 3678479, at *1 (D. Neb. Dec. 18,
2025).
For these reasons, the undersigned finds Thompson has not presented any legal basis for
sentencing relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
V. 	RECOMMENDATION
IT 	IS 	THEREFORE 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	Thompson’s 	Motion 	for 	Sentence
Modification (ECF No. 80) be DENIED.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of our report and recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
Case 3:23-cr-30009-TLB Document 83 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of facts. The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of January 2026.
__________________________________________
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:23-cr-30009-TLB Document 83 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>