USA v. Prince

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KRISTIN P. PRINCE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:21-CR-30188-DWD
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Now before the Court is Defendant Kristin P. Prince’s Motion for Sentence
Reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 of the United States
Sentencing Commission Guidelines. (Doc. 49). Prince argues that Amendment 821 lowers
his criminal history score and reduces his sentencing guideline range. The Government
opposes the Motion. (Doc. 53). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
On August 29, 2022, Defendant Prince pled guilty to two counts of distribution of
controlled 	substance: 	methamphetamine, 	in 	violation 	of 	21 	U.S.C. 	§§ 	841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A)(viii). (Doc. 33). Prior to sentencing, a Presentence Investigation Report
submitted by the Office of Probation found Prince to have a total criminal history score
of 11, a criminal history category of V, and a resulting Guideline imprisonment range of
168 to 210 months. (Doc. 36). Pursuant to the applicable guidelines at that time, two of
the points included in Prince’s total criminal history score were given because Prince
Case 3:21-cr-30188-DWD Document 54 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
committed the offense while on community supervision and probation in other cases.
(Doc. 36, pg. 12).
On January 27, 2023, the undersigned sentenced Prince to a total term of
imprisonment of 168 months. (Doc. 46). In the Court’s Statement of Reasons to Judgment
as 	to 	the 	Defendant, 	the 	Court 	provided 	that, 	“[i]n 	the 	event 	the 	guideline
determination(s) made in this case are found to be incorrect, the court would impose a
sentence identical to that imposed in this case.” (Doc. 47, pg. 4).
Defendant Prince filed the instant motion on September 30, 2025. Therein, he
argues that the two points added to his criminal history score for committing the instant
offence while on community supervision and probation in other cases should be removed
under Amendment 821. (Doc. 49, pgs. 1-3). Without the added points, Prince asserts that
his criminal history score should be 9 and his criminal history category should be reduced
from V to IV, resulting in an amended sentencing guideline of 151 to 188 months. (Doc.
49, pg. 1-2). However, Defendant Prince misinterprets the application of Amendment 821.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court may reduce the term of imprisonment where
a defendant’s sentence is “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered 	by 	the 	Sentencing 	Commission.” 	Amendment 	821 	of 	the 	United 	States
Sentencing Commission Guidelines amended U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 to add one point instead
of two to the defendant’s criminal history score when the defendant “committed the
offense while under any criminal justice sentence.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e).
Upon review of the record and the legal authorities, the Court FINDS Defendant
Prince cannot benefit from § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 (Part A). As noted by the
Case 3:21-cr-30188-DWD Document 54 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
Government, 	Defendant's 	criminal 	history points 	would 	be reduced 	under 	those
provisions from 11 to 10, but he would still be subject to the criminal history category of
V. (Doc. 53, pg. 5). By extension, Defendant's guideline sentencing range would be
unchanged. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (“A reduction in the defendant's term of
imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if… [a]n amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have
the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.”).
The Court recognizes and finds it worthy of note that Defendant has pointed to
his “effort at rehabilitation and “record of rehabilitation” in support of h is Motion. The
Court commends Defendant on his efforts and accomplishments so early in his term of
imprisonment.
Nevertheless, Defendant’s sentence of imprisonment was within the guideline
sentencing range when it was issued and § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 does not affect
the calculation of that range. Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction,
so his Motion (Doc. 49) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2026
______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
Case 3:21-cr-30188-DWD Document 54 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>