USA v. Martin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 20-CR-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 Reduction of Sentence (Doc. 48). He contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. For the
reasons stated in more detail below, the Court dismisses Defendant’s motion.
I. 	Factual and Procedural Background
On May 21, 2021, Defendant entered a guilty plea under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(C) to
Count One of the Indictment, production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
Under the plea agreement, the parties proposed a sentence within the range of 300 to 600 months.
A Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) was subsequently prepared. According to the PSR,
Defendant’s conviction resulted in a subtotal criminal history score of 6. Two additional status
points were applied to the criminal history score pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) because
Case 6:20-cr-10079-EFM Document 51 Filed 08/25/26 Page 1 of 4

-2-
Defendant committed the offense while under a criminal justice sentence.1 Thus, Defendant’s
criminal history score is 8, establishing a criminal history category of IV. However, because
Defendant was deemed a repeat and dangerous sex offender against minors, his criminal history
category was elevated to V pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(a)(2). On September 2, 2021, the Court
sentenced Defendant to 300 months’ imprisonment.
On June 22, 2026, Defendant filed this motion seeking a retroactive application of Part A
of Amendment 821 to his sentence. The government opposes Defendant’s motion.
II. 	Analysis
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)” and after considering § 3553(a) factors so long as the
reduction “is consistent with applicable policy statements.”3
Effective November 1, 2023, the Sentencing Commission amended the United States
Sentencing Guidelines as reflected in Amendment 821.4 Part A of Amendment 821 limits the
impact of criminal history points, or “status points,” and subpart 1 of Part B of Amendment 821
creates a new guideline, § 4C1.1, that provides for a decrease of two offense levels for “Zero-Point
1 See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2018) (stating that a defendant will receive an additional
two points if the defendant “committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence”).
2 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
3 Id.
4 See 88 Fed. Reg. 28,254, 2023 WL 3199918 (May 3, 2023).
Case 6:20-cr-10079-EFM Document 51 Filed 08/25/26 Page 2 of 4

-3-
Offenders.”5 Relevant to this case, Part A of Amendment 821 limits the impact of “status points”
if the instant offense was committed while under a criminal justice sentence.6
Defendant argues that his sentence should be reduced because he is eligible for a two-point
reduction under Part A of Amendment 821 of the revised sentencing guidelines. He argues that the
two-point reduction in status points changes his criminal history category from V to IV thereby
reducing his sentence. Amendment 821, however, has no impact on Defendant’s criminal history
category. Because Defendant is a “repeat and dangerous sex offender against minors,” his criminal
history category remains V by application of the enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5.
Additionally, Defendant’s sentence cannot be reduced because he was sentenced to the
mandatory minimum sentence of 300 months in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and
2251(e).7 Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 app. note 1(A), a reduction in the defendant’s term of
imprisonment is not triggered under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) where the amendment “does not have
the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of
another 	guideline 	or 	statutory 	provision 	(e.g., 	a 	statutory 	mandatory 	minimum 	term 	of
imprisonment).” Accordingly, Amendment 821 does not afford Defendant the requested relief.
The Court dismisses Defendant’s motion.8
5 See https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/amendment/821 (last visited Aug. 17, 2026); see also U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.1; § 4C1.1.
6 U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1.
7 See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) (prohibiting the creation of a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually
explicit conduct); § 2251(e) (setting a mandatory minimum penalty of 300 months for an individual with a prior
conviction under § 2251).
8 See United States v. White, 765 F.3d 1240, 1250 (10th Cir. 2014) (stating that a district court should dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction if a defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2)).
Case 6:20-cr-10079-EFM Document 51 Filed 08/25/26 Page 3 of 4

-4-
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence (Doc. 48)
is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24th day of August, 2026.
ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:20-cr-10079-EFM Document 51 Filed 08/25/26 Page 4 of 4