USA v. Marcus Ford, et al

Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARCUS FORD,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:20-CR-30052-NJR-1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Sentence Reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582 filed by Defendant Marcus Ford. (Doc. 102). Ford also has asked the Court to
appoint him a Federal Public Defender to assist with his motion. (Doc. 103). The
Government filed a timely response in opposition. (Doc. 108). For the following reasons,
Ford’s motions are denied.
B ACKGROUND
On 	February 	23, 2021, 	the 	undersigned 	sentenced 	Ford 	to 	168 	months 	of
imprisonment—a below-guideline sentence—after he pleaded guilty to distribution of
methamphetamine 	and 	possession 	with 	intent 	to 	distribute 	methamphetamine 	in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). (Docs. 68, 71). Ford’s sentence was
affirmed on appeal. United States v. Ford, 22 F.4th 687 (7th Cir. 2022).
Ford now seeks a reduction in his sentence because he believes he is serving an
“unusually long sentence” and that revisions to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines have
created a “gross disparity” between the sentence he is serving and what he would receive
Case 3:20-cr-30052-NJR Document 109 Filed 11/05/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 5
if sentenced today. (Doc. 102). Ford also references his rehabilitation, stating that he has
taken advantage of “programming and First Step Act opportunities to change his
thinking and approach to life.” (Id.). As a testament to his progress, the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) has placed him in minimum security conditions. (Id.).
LEGAL STANDARD
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), a district court “may not modify a term of imprisonment
once it has been imposed” unless an exception applies. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.
817, 824 (2010). One exception allows a court to grant an inmate compassionate release if
the inmate meets certain requirements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A federal prisoner
may bring a motion for compassionate release after exhausting the administrative
remedies provided by the BOP. 1 Id.
The Seventh Circuit has described a two-step process for evaluating a prisoner’s
motion for compassionate release. First, “the prisoner must identify an ‘extraordinary
and compelling’ reason warranting a sentence reduction.” United States v. Thacker, 4 F.4th
569, 576 (7th Cir. 2021). Second, “[u]pon a finding that the prisoner has supplied such a
reason,” a court “consider[s] any applicable sentencing factors in § 3553(a) as part of
determining what sentencing reduction to award the prisoner.” Id.
DISCUSSION
Ford does not cite any statutory or other authority that would permit the Court to
1 Ford does not even mention administrative remedies in his motion, much less prove that he exhausted
the process provided by the BOP. Nevertheless, because the Government does not dispute that Ford
exhausted his administrative remedies, the Court will review the merits of Ford’s motion. See United States
v. Newton, 996 F.3d 485, 488 (7th Cir. 2021) (“§ 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement is an affirmative
defense for the Government to raise”).
Case 3:20-cr-30052-NJR Document 109 Filed 11/05/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 5
reduce his sentence. However, his assertion that he is serving an unusually long sentence
and that revisions to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines have created a “gross disparity”
between the sentence he is serving and what he would receive if sentenced today is a
reference to the Sentencing Commission’s November 2023 amendment to § 1B1.13(6) of
the Guidelines. The amended provision now states:
(b) EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPELLING REASONS.—Extraordinary
and compelling reasons exist under any of the following circumstances or
a combination thereof: . . .
(6) UNUSUALLY LONG SENTENCE.—If a defendant received an
unusually long sentence and has served at least 10 years of the term
of imprisonment, a change in the law (other than an amendment to
the Guidelines Manual that has not been made retroactive) may be
considered in determining whether the defendant presents an
extraordinary and compelling reason [for compassionate release
under 	§ 	3852(c)(1)(A)(i)], 	but 	only 	where 	such 	change 	would
produce a gross disparity between the sentence being served and the
sentence likely to be imposed at the time the motion is filed, and after
full consideration of the defendant’s individualized circumstances.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(6).
There are two reasons why Ford is not entitled to relief under § 1B1.13(6).
First, Ford has not served at least 10 years of his term of imprisonment. Indeed, he
has served less than five years of his 14-year sentence.
Second, Ford has not identified any change in the law that would constitute an
extraordinary and compelling reason for release. Ford claims that his criminal history
score of 6 was heightened due to two previous charges—petty theft and possession of
marijuana—that have been dismissed. Therefore, if he were sentenced today, he would
have a lower criminal history score of 4. But as noted by the Government, those charges
Case 3:20-cr-30052-NJR Document 109 Filed 11/05/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 5
were never dismissed. Ford received one criminal history point for theft that occurred in
2008 when Ford was 18. Ford pleaded guilty to stealing ice cream sandwiches and was
sentenced in St. Clair County to three months of court supervision. (Doc. 54 at p. 8). Ford
also received a criminal history point for possession of cannabis in 2009, when Ford was
19. Ford pleaded guilty to that charge as well and was sentenced in St. Clair County to a
fine. (Id.). Thus, there is no basis to find that Ford would receive a lower criminal history
score if he were sentenced today. And even if he would, § 1B1.13(6) applies to changes in
the law, not changes to a defendant’s criminal history.
The Court also notes that it sentenced Ford to a below-guideline sentence, in part,
because of his youth and the petty nature of these two crimes. (Doc. 72). The Court
sentenced Ford to 168 months’ imprisonment, which, at his offense level of 35, would be
the low end of the range for someone with zero criminal history points. 2 It is hard for the
Court to understand why Ford thinks his sentence is “unusually long” or that he would
receive a lower sentence if sentenced today.
The Government, acknowledging that the unusually long sentence provision in
§ 1B1.13(6) does not apply to Ford’s circumstances, also argues that Ford is not entitled
to relief under § 1B1.13(b)(5). That section states that an inmate can demonstrate
extraordinary and compelling circumstances if he “presents any other circumstance or
combination of circumstances that, when considered by themselves or together with any
of the reasons described in paragraphs (1) through (4), are similar in gravity to those
described in paragraphs (1) through (4).” Paragraphs 1 through (4) apply to the medical
2 Ford’s advisory guideline range was 210 to 262 months. (Doc. 54 at p. 19).
Case 3:20-cr-30052-NJR Document 109 Filed 11/05/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 5
circumstances of the defendant, the age of the defendant, family circumstances of the
defendant, and whether the defendant was the victim of any physical or sexual abuse.
§ 1B1.13(b)(1)-(b)(4).
The 	Court 	agrees with 	the 	Government 	that 	Ford 	has not 	presented 	any
circumstances that are similar in gravity to those described in paragraphs (1) through (4).
While Ford points to his rehabilitation, as the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines recognize,
rehabilitation alone is not an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate
release. § 1B1.13(d). And Ford has not provided any other circumstance that, when
combined with his rehabilitation, would justify compassionate release. See id.
Because Ford has not demonstrated any extraordinary and compelling reason for
compassionate release, the Court need not determine whether the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors warrant his release. Ford’s Motion for Sentence Reduction pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
§ 3582 (Doc. 102) and his Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 103) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	November 5, 2025
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 3:20-cr-30052-NJR Document 109 Filed 11/05/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>