USA v. Washington et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Criminal Case No. 22-cr-187-WJM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. 	SHAMBRICA WASHINGTON,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION
Before the Court is Defendant Shambrica Washington’s Motion for Reduction of
Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines (ECF No. 238) (“Motion”). The Government filed a response.
(ECF No. 242.) Defendant did not file a reply.
For the reasons explained below, the Motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
In June 2024, a jury convicted Defendant on three counts of wire fraud, two
counts of bank fraud, 22 counts of money laundering, and four counts of false claims.
(ECF No. 199.) In the Presentence Investigation Report, which the Court adopted
without change, Defendant was assessed one criminal history point for a prior felony
offense to which Defendant pleaded guilty in El Paso County District Court in 2020.
(ECF No. 218 at 14–15; ECF No. 227 at 1.) In October 2024, the Court sentenced
Defendant to a total term of imprisonment of 90 months. (ECF No. 226 at 3.)
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 268 filed 03/17/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

2
Defendant now asks the Court to reduce her sentence in accordance with
Amendment 821’s provision for the reduction in offense level for certain offenders with
zero criminal history points. (See generally ECF No. 238.) She states she is “[n]ot sure
what [she] received criminal history points for” because it was not “discussed with [her],”
but that she has “[n]o federal cases.” (Id. at 3–4.) She also states she “shouldn’t have
been given any points as it was a nonviolent offense.” (Id. at 4.)
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court may modify the sentence
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. § 944(o), upon motion of the
defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons [“BOP”],
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.
The Sentencing Guidelines, in turn, direct that:
A reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not
consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not
authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if—
(A) none of the amendments listed in subsection (d) is
applicable to the defendant; or
(B) an amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have
the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline
range.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2) (2024 ed.).
To determine “whether, and to what extent, a reduction in the defendant’s term of
imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and [U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10] is warranted,”
courts must “determine the amended guideline range that would have been applicable
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 268 filed 03/17/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3
to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines . . . had been in effect at the time
the defendant was sentenced.” 	§ 1B1.10(b)(1). 	Absent exception, courts “shall not
reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment . . . to a term that is less than the minimum
of the amended guideline range . . . .” § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). This limitation also applies “[i]f
the term of imprisonment imposed was outside the guideline range applicable to the
defendant at the time of sentencing,” such as where the sentence “constitut[ed] a
downward departure or variance.” § 1B1.10, cmt. 3.
III. ANALYSIS
Defendant asks the Court to reduce her sentence in accordance with
Amendment 821’s provision relating to offense level adjustments for “zero-point
offenders.” § 1B1.10(d), cmt. 7; § 4C1.1(a). That provision instructs that a court should
“decrease the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three” of the
Sentencing Guidelines “by 2 levels” if, among ten additional criteria, “the defendant did
not receive any criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A.” § 4C1.1(a).
As noted, however, Defendant is not a zero-point offender because she had one
criminal history point at the time of sentencing. See Section I infra. Although Defendant
appears to argue she should not have received any criminal history points because she
had no prior sentences for federal, violent offenses, the Sentencing Guidelines do not
so limit the assessment of criminal history points. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c) (2024 ed.)
(“Sentences for all felony offenses are counted.”); § 4A1.2(o) (“a ‘felony offense’ means
any federal, state, or local offense punishable by death or a term of imprisonment
exceeding one year, regardless of the actual sentence imposed”).
In short, because Defendant had one criminal history point at sentencing, she is
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 268 filed 03/17/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

4
not entitled to an offense level reduction in accordance with the zero-point offender
provision.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction (ECF
No. 238) is DENIED.
Dated this 17th day of March, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
______________________
William J. Martínez
Senior United States District Judge
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 268 filed 03/17/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4