USA v. Jones

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Christopher Daniel Jones,
Defendant.
No. CR-19-08265-001-PCT-MTL
ORDER
I
Defendant Christopher Daniel Jones pleaded guilty to the crime of Carjacking, a
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119(a) and 2119(1), as charged in Count 1 of the indictment.
(Doc. 38 at 1) Defendant entered a guilty plea on February 26, 2020. (Id.) The Court entered
a judgment of conviction and sentenced him to 105 months in prison, with credit for time
served, on September 25, 2020. (Id.)
At the time, the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”) § 4A1.1(d) called
for the inclusion of two criminal history “status points” because Defendant “committed the
instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence for Failure to Register as a
Convicted Sex Offender, in the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ;
Docket Nos.: 2:16-cr-01193-GMS-1 and 2:14-cr-00864-GMS-1.” (Presentence
Investigation Report “PSR” ¶ 33) Based on Defendant’s status, and his prior convictions,
the PSR assigned a total of 10 criminal history points and concluded that his Criminal
History score is V. (Id. ¶¶ 29-34) Defendant’s total offense level was computed as 23,
Case 3:19-cr-08265-MTL Document 48 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
which resulted in an advisory guideline range of 84 to 105 months in custody. (Id. ¶ 85)
The parties jointly recommend that the Court reduce Defendant’s sentence by 18
months based on Amendment 821, Part A, to the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
(Doc. 47) This would eliminate the two status points from Defendant’s criminal history
calculation and change Defendant’s criminal history score to IV, resulting in an amended
advisory guideline range of 70-87 months in custody. (Id. ¶¶ 6-8) The Court declines to do
so because the joint recommendation is unsupported by the sentencing objectives
established by Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
II
The general rule is that “courts may not alter a term of imprisonment once it is
imposed.” United States v. Morales, 590 F.3d 1049, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010). An exception is
found in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2):
[I]n 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 . . . the court may reduce the term of
imprisonment . . . if such a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.
The statute thus provides a two-step analysis for determining whether a defendant
is entitled to a sentence reduction. In the first step, the reviewing court “decides eligibility
by determining whether a reduction is consistent with . . . [USSG] § 1B1.10, the policy
statement that implements § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Rodriguez, 921 F.3d 1149, 1153
(9th Cir. 2019) (citing Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010)). In the second
step, the reviewing court considers all applicable § 3553(a) factors and exercises its
discretion in determining whether “the authorized reduction is warranted, either in whole
or in part.” Rodriguez, 921 F.3d at 1153 (quoting Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826). The court’s
consideration “cannot serve to transform the proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) into plenary
resentencing proceedings.” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827.
Case 3:19-cr-08265-MTL Document 48 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III
Part A of Amendment 821 limits the criminal history impact of status points in
USSG § 4A1.1. Under the changes, the United States Sentencing Commission struck
subsection (d), which added two status points if the offense was committed while under a
criminal justice sentence. In its place, the new subsection (e) states that one status point
should be added if a defendant receives seven or more points calculated under subsections
(a) through (d) and committed the offense while under a criminal justice sentence. The
United States Sentencing Commission approved an amendment to USSG § 1B1.10(d),
making Amendment 821 retroactive.
The Court finds that Defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under the
retroactive application of Amendment 821. This is because the Court, following the prior
version of USSG § 4A1.1(d), assessed two criminal history status points against Defendant
because he committed the offense while under a term of supervised release for his prior
federal court conviction. Those two points would not be included if Defendant were
sentenced under the amended guidelines.
IV
Section 3553(a) of Title 18, United States Code, requires that the Court consider
several objectives when imposing a sentence. They include the nature and circumstances
of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; the need for the sentence to
reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense; whether the sentence affords adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct; the protection of the public from further crimes of the defendant; and whether the
defendant will be provided with needed training, medical care, or treatment. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1), (2). The Court should also consider the kinds of sentences available, the
applicable advisory guideline sentencing range, the need to avoid sentencing disparities,
and victim restitution. Id. § 3553(a)(3)-(7).
The Court finds that, in this case, the retroactive application of Amendment 821
would not serve any of the § 3553(a) factors. Particularly, reducing Defendant’s sentence
Case 3:19-cr-08265-MTL Document 48 Filed 10/29/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
would undermine the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, provide
just punishment, and afford adequate deterrence of similar violent conduct by this
Defendant and others. Reducing Defendant’s sentence would jeopardize public safety.
All of this is against the backdrop of the nature and circumstances of the underlying
offense, a carjacking where the victim was threatened by Defendant, wielding “a knife to
her side while yelling at her to drive.” (PSR ¶ 5) The victim impact statement describes the
victim’s extensive emotional trauma at the time of sentencing. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12) The Court
also notes the serious nature of Defendant’s prior federal court convictions for Failure to
Register as a Convicted Sex Offender, that the later conviction occurred while Defendant
was “on escape status,” and his other criminal conduct. (Id. ¶¶ 27-41)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Reduction of Sentence
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Based on Amendment 821 to the U.S. Sentencing
Commission Guidelines is denied.
Dated this 29th day of October, 2025.
Case 3:19-cr-08265-MTL Document 48 Filed 10/29/25 Page 4 of 4