USA v. Kuhnel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Craig R. Baune and Harry Jacobs, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300
South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Plaintiff.
John Edwin Kuhnel, Reg. No. 21169-041, Federal Correctional Institution
Pekin, Post Office Box 5000, Pekin, IL 61555, pro se.
In 2020, Defendant John Edwin Kuhnel was convicted on nine counts of receipt of
child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1) and on two counts of
possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2) and
18 U.S.C. 	§§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2).1 	Kuhnel was 	sentenced to 204 	months
imprisonment, to be followed by 15 years of supervised release.2
1 (Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Conviction, Feb. 27, 2020, Docket
No. 295.) On July 19, 2022, Count 11 was vacated and the Judgment was amended to delete that
count. (See Order Amending J. and Vacating Conviction, July 19, 2022, Docket No. 391.)
2 (Second Am. Sentencing J., July 22, 2022, Docket No. 393.)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN EDWIN KUHNEL,
Defendant.
Crim. No. 17-158 (JRT/BRT)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
REPRESENTATION, MOTION TO REDUCE
SENTENCE, AND MOTION TO REMOVE
NO-CONTACT ORDER
CASE 0:17-cr-00158-JRT-BRT Doc. 400 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 4

-2-
On October 3, 2025, Kuhnel filed a Pro Se Motion Guidelines Amendment and
Sentence Reduction, requesting a modification of his criminal history category and a
reduction in sentence (Docket No. 396), as well as a motion requesting appointment of
counsel in connection with his sentence reduction motion (Docket No. 395). Kuhnel also
filed a motion seeking to lift a no-contact order because the victim is no longer a minor
(Docket No. 397). 	After careful review of Kuhnel’s motions, the Court concludes that
relief is not warranted. The Court will therefore deny each motion.
DISCUSSION
I. 	MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
Kuhnel requests a reduced sentence, arguing that Amendment 821 of the United
States Sentencing Guidelines would decrease his criminal history score and the resulting
criminal history category.3 	(Pro Se Mot. Guideline Am. & Sentence Reduction, Oct. 3,
2025, Docket No. 396.) After Amendment 821, a defendant with seven or more criminal
history points receives only one status point (instead of two) for “commit[ing] the instant
offense while under any criminal justice sentence.” United States v. Youngman, No. 24-
1369, 2025 WL 1554929, at *1 n.2 (8 th Cir. June 2, 2025).
3 The Probation and Pretrial Services Office analyzed the applicability of Amendment 821
to Kuhnel’s sentence and determined that Kuhnel was not eligible for a sentence reduction.
(Letter to District Judge, Oct. 23, 2025, Docket No. 398). Moreover, the Office of the Federal
Defender submitted a letter explaining that they did not intend to file any materials concerning
Amendment 821 on Kuhnel’s behalf. (Nov. 3, 2025, Docket No. 399.)
CASE 0:17-cr-00158-JRT-BRT Doc. 400 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 4

-3-
The Court has authority to reduce an offender’s sentence after it is imposed if he
or she was “sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
When Kuhnel was incarcerated for this offense, he received to two status points
for committing the offense while under a criminal justice sentence (Second Degree
Criminal Sexual Conduct, Hennepin County, Minnesota, CR-10-6587) pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.1(d) (now (e)). (See Presentence Investigation Report at 18, July 10, 2020, Docket
No. 343.) Under the amended guidelines, he would receive only one point, reducing his
criminal history score from 12 to 11. 	But this reduction does not change his criminal
history category, which remains Category V. 	Because the amendment does not affect
Kuhnel’s guideline range, he is not entitled to a sentence reduction. 	See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Because the Court will deny Kuhnel’s motion for a sentence reduction,
the Court will deny his motion for representation as moot.
II. 	MOTION TO REMOVE NO-CONTACT ORDER
As part of Kuhnel’s sentence, the Court imposed several special conditions of
supervision, including a requirement that Kuhnel have no contact with victim A.K.
(Second Am. Sentencing J. at 5.) Kuhnel filed this motion requesting that the no-contact
order be lifted because this victim is no longer a minor. (Pro Se Motion to Remove No
Contact, Oct. 3, 2025, Docket No. 397.) 	As part of Kuhnel’s sentencing, the Court
considered if and when Kuhnel should have contact with A.K., and the Court finds that no
modification to the conditions put in place at that time is warranted. 	The Court will
CASE 0:17-cr-00158-JRT-BRT Doc. 400 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 4

-4-
therefore deny the motion. During supervision, the supervising probation officer will be
in a better position to determine whether to recommend that the condition be modified.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendant John Edwin Kuhnel’s Pro Se Motion for Representation [Docket No.
395] is DENIED as moot;
2. 	Defendant Kuhnel’s Pro Se Motion Guideline Amendment and a Sentence
Reduction [Docket No. 396] is DENIED; and
3. 	Defendant Kuhnel’s Pro Se Motion to Remove No Contact [Docket No. 397] is
DENIED.
DATED: January 6, 2026 	/s/ John R. Tunheim
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:17-cr-00158-JRT-BRT Doc. 400 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 4