USA v. Morgan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	) 	CASE NO. 5:22-cr-165
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN
)
v. 	)
)
ROY G. MORGAN, III, 	) 	OPINION AND ORDER
)
Defendant. 	)
On November 18, 2022, Defendant Roy G. Morgan, III (“Morgan”) was sentenced to a
within-Guidelines range sentence of 60 months after pleading guilty to one count of felon in
possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Doc. 23,
Judgment.) Morgan now seeks relief pursuant to Amendment 821 to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines because two status points were incorrectly assessed at the time of
sentencing. (Doc. 27, Motion for Reduction in Sentence Under Amendment 821, Pursuant to
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).) Arguing that Part A of Amendment 821 does not alter Morgan’s criminal
history category, the government opposed. (Doc. 29.)
I. 	RELEVANT BACKGROUND
At sentencing, the Court determined that Morgan’s 49 prior convictions resulted in a
subtotal criminal history score of 18. (Doc. 19, PSR, ¶¶ 24-73.) At that time, two status points
were added pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). (Id., ¶ 74.) Morgan was under a criminal justice
act sentence for having a weapon under disability at the time of the offense conduct. (Id.) The
Case: 5:22-cr-00165-BMB Doc #: 30 Filed: 12/10/25 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

resulting criminal history score was 20, and the applicable criminal history category was VI.
(Id., ¶ 75.)
Morgan correctly states that Part A to Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines,
which took effect on November 1, 2023, and applies retroactively, eliminated the application of
two status points altogether. (Doc. 27 at 174.)1 As amended, defendants with seven or more
criminal history points can only be assessed one status point. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). (Id.) On
this, both parties agree. The disagreement lies in whether applying Part A reduces Morgan’s
criminal history category. (Doc. 27 at 175; cf. Doc. 29 at 182-83.)
II. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
District courts are generally prohibited from modifying “a term of imprisonment once it
has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). However, when a defendant “has been sentenced to a
term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission,” that sentence may be reduced if “such a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission” and the Section 3553(a)
factors weigh in favor of a reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
To comply with § 3582(c)(2), the court must adhere to a two-step process. Dillon v.
United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 177 L. Ed. 2d 271 (2010).
At step one, § 3582(c) requires the court to follow the Commission’s instructions
in § 1B1.10 to determine the prisoner’s eligibility for a sentence modification and
the extent of the reduction authorized. Specifically, § 1B1.10(b)(1) requires the
court to begin by determin[ing] the amended guideline range that would have
been applicable to the defendant had the relevant amendment been in effect at the
time of the initial sentencing. In making such determination, the court shall
substitute only the amendments listed in subsection (c) for the corresponding
guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and
shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal citations are to the PageID # generated by the CM/ECF
system.
Case: 5:22-cr-00165-BMB Doc #: 30 Filed: 12/10/25 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

Id. at 827 (citation and quotations omitted).
If a reduction is consistent with § 1B1.10(b)(1), the court then proceeds to step two:
At step two of the inquiry, § 3582(c)(2) instructs a court to consider any
applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the
reduction authorized by reference to the policies relevant at step one is warranted
in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.
Id.
Morgan’s request for relief fails at step one. A total of 13 or more criminal history points
results in a criminal history category VI. Before any status points applied, Morgan’s subtotal
criminal history points were 18. Removing one status point in accordance with Part A does not
disturb Morgan’s criminal history category. Thus, he is not entitled to a sentencing reduction.
The Court notes, however, that Morgan’s commitment to improving his conduct and condition
through prison employment and BOP programming is commendable.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Roy G. Morgan, III’s Motion for Reduction in
Sentence Under Amendment 821, Pursuant to U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
Date: December 10, 2025 	BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 5:22-cr-00165-BMB Doc #: 30 Filed: 12/10/25 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>