USA v. Puttman et al

- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Otis Lewis Puttman,
a/k/a Terrance Dremaine McCray,
a/k/d Terrance McCrary,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:18-cr-00216
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
[¶1] 	THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion to Reduce Sentence filed by the
Defendant on February 20, 2024. Doc. No. 162. CJA Counsel was appointed to represent the
Defendant and filed a Notice of Intent Not to Supplement on March 20, 2024. Doc. No. 167. The
Defendant filed three pro se supplements. Doc. Nos. 168, 170, 172. The United States filed a
Response on April 16, 2024. Doc. No. 171. The Defendant did not file a Reply. For the reasons
set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
[¶2] 	The Defendant seeks a reduction of his sentence based upon Amendment 821 to the United
States Sentencing Guidelines which went into effect on November 1, 2023. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), a defendant may seek a sentence reduction if he has “been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission[.]” The Defendant’s Motion fails under both Parts A and B of Amendment 821.
[¶3] 	In Part A to Amendment 821, the United States Sentencing Commission made changes to
the “status points” provision which are criminal history points added when a defendant committed
the instant offense while under another criminal justice sentence. The retroactive application of
Case 1:18-cr-00216-DMT Document 175 Filed 06/26/24 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
Part A does not affect his criminal history category of VI because the Defendant was a career
offender under USSG § 4B1.1(b). See Doc. No. 112, ¶ 34; Doc. No. 132. He would have been in
criminal history category VI regardless of the two additional status points. Therefore, Part A to
Amendment 821 is inapplicable.
[¶4] 	In Part B, Subpart 1 to Amendment 821, the Sentencing Commission created a two-level
reduction in the total offense level for defendants receiving zero criminal history points and whose
offense did not involve certain criteria. Part B likewise affords no relief. The retroactive application
of the two-level reduction in USSG § 4C1.1 only applies when a defendant “did not receive any
criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A.” USSG § 4C1.1(a)(1). The Defendant had six
scoreable criminal history points before the two status points were added. Doc. No. 112, ¶¶ 31-32.
Because he has six scoreable criminal history points, he is not a zero-point offender under USSG
§ 4C1.1 and is ineligible for a sentencing reduction under Part B of Amendment 821.
[¶5] 	The record demonstrates that Amendment 821 does not apply to the Defendant. Therefore,
the Defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly,
the Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence is DENIED.
[¶6] 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED June 26, 2024.
Daniel M. Traynor, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:18-cr-00216-DMT Document 175 Filed 06/26/24 Page 2 of 2