USA v. Martin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 20-10079-EFM
FREDERICK LOUIS MARTIN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Defendant Frederick Louis Martin’s Motion
for Sentence Reduction (Doc. 40). He seeks a reduction in sentence stating that courts no longer
use criminal history points. The government opposes Defendant’s motion. For the reasons stated
below, the Court dismisses Defendant’s motion.
On May 21, 2021, Defendant pleaded guilty to production of child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). On September 2, 2021, Defendant was sentenced to 300
months’ imprisonment. Defendant’s projected release date is March 28, 2042.
On December 5, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion. He states that “courts have done
away with criminal history points” and thus his 23 criminal history points should be taken off his
record. He requests that his sentence be reduced to time served. The government opposes his
Motion contending that Defendant is mistaken that the Sentencing Commission has eliminated
Case 6:20-cr-10079-EFM Document 44 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 2

-2-
criminal history points. Thus, the government asserts that the Court is without jurisdiction to hear
Defendant’s Motion.
“[I]t is well-settled that ‘[a] district court is authorized to modify a Defendant’s sentence
only in specified instances where Congress has expressly granted the court jurisdiction to do so.’”1
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a defendant may file his own motion for a sentence reduction
provided certain factors are met.2 Specifically, § 3582(c)(2) allows a court to reduce a term of
imprisonment “in the case 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. 994(o).”
Here, the Sentencing Commission has not eliminated the use of criminal history points.3
Thus, there is no basis for Defendant’s motion. Accordingly, the Court dismisses it.4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction (Doc.
40) is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 29th day of January, 2026.
ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 United States v. White, 765 F.3d 1240, 1244 (quoting United States v. Blackwell, 81 F.3d 945, 947 (10th
Cir. 1996)).
2 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
3 Defendant may be confused as the Sentencing Commission limited the criminal history impact of “status
points.” See https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/amendment/821 (last visited January 27, 2026). The Sentencing
Commission, however, did not eliminate the use of criminal history points.
4 See White, 765 F.3d at 1250 (noting that “dismissal for lack of jurisdiction rather than denial on the merits
is the appropriate disposition of [the defendant’s] § 3582(c)(2) motion” when there is no statutory authorization under
§ 3582(c)(2) for the relief sought).
Case 6:20-cr-10079-EFM Document 44 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 2