USA v. Whitlow

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDRE WHITLOW,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.: 1:22-cr-00620
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER
(Resolving Docs. 77, 79)
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Sentence Reduction, Modification and
Resentencing Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Doc. 77) (the “Motion”) filed by Defendant
Andre Whitlow (“Whitlow”). The United States of America filed the Government’s Response in
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Doc.
79).
For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A federal grand jury charged Whitlow with felon in possession of a firearm in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Doc. 1. A jury found Whitlow guilty. Doc. 55.
In preparation for sentencing, the United States Pretrial Services and Probation Office
prepared the Presentence Investigation Report (the “PSR”). Doc. 58. The PSR indicated Whitlow
had a total offense level of 28 and a criminal history category of V, therefore the advisory guideline
range was 130–162 months. PSR at p. 18, ¶ 68. However, the maximum sentence for the offense
was ten years or less, therefore, the guideline range applied was 120 months. Id. The Court
Case: 1:22-cr-00620-JRA Doc #: 80 Filed: 12/29/25 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
ultimately sentenced Whitlow on January 30, 2024 to a term of 120 months’ imprisonment. Doc.
62.
Prior 	to 	Whitlow’s 	sentencing, 	the 	United 	States 	Sentencing 	Commission 	issued
Amendment 821. The Amendment was effective on November 1, 2023, although its retroactive
application as to those sentenced prior to November 1, 2023 did not take effect until February 1,
2024. Whitlow seeks retroactive application of Amendment 821 to reduce his sentence.
II. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
A defendant that has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a subsequently
lowered sentencing range may move the Court to reduce their term of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). 	The alleged lowered sentencing range in this case resulted from Amendment 821,
which was made retroactive by 18 U.S.C. Appx. § 825 (“Amendment 825”).
The Court must employ a two-step approach when deciding whether to reduce the
defendant’s sentence pursuant to a retroactive amendment. United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098,
1107 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010)). First, the
Court must ensure the defendant is eligible for a sentence modification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Appx
§ 1B1.10 (the “Policy Statement”). 	Id. 	Relevant in this case, the Policy Statement applies to
Amendment 821. 	See 18 U.S.C. Appx § 1B1.10, n.7. If the defendant is eligible, the Court is
further instructed to consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to determine whether a
reduction is warranted in light of the particular circumstances of the case. Jones, 980 F.3d at 1107.
B. Analysis
Whitlow asks the Court to reduce his sentence under Amendment 821 based on the
assertion that the amendment changes his criminal history points and, as a result, the advisory
Case: 1:22-cr-00620-JRA Doc #: 80 Filed: 12/29/25 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
range is lowered. Doc. 77. 	Part A of Amendment 821 created a new U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e) that
provides:
[a]dd 1 point if the defendant (1) receives 7 or more points under subsections (a) through
(d), and (2) committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence,
including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape
status.
At the time of sentencing, Whitlow’s total criminal history points were 11. Ten of those
points were the result of previous criminal convictions pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1(a), (c), and
(k). 	PSR at pp. 8–12, ¶¶ 30–34. 	Then, one additional status point was added to the subtotal
criminal history score in accordance with the new § 4A1.1(e) because his criminal history points
under U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1(a)-(d) were seven or more and he committed the underlying offense
while on post release control for state charges of having weapons while under disability and
attempted aggravated robbery.1 PSR at p. 12, ¶ 36.
Amendment 821 does not affect Whitlow’s criminal history computation, and he is not
eligible for consideration of a sentence reduction. At sentencing, the Court applied a criminal
history score of 11, pursuant to the PSR. In response to the Motion, the Government properly
highlights that the PSR calculated Whitlow’s criminal history points following the new § 4A1.1(e)
enacted by Amendment 821. Doc. 79 at p. 2. 	This calculation was correct, and Whitlow was
sentenced in January 2024, therefore the calculation is not affected by any retroactive application
of Amendment 821. As such, Whitlow was not sentenced based on a subsequently lowered
sentencing range and he is therefore ineligible for a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. Appx §
1B1.10(a)(1).
1 	Whitlow would have received an additional status point under the old calculation. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d)
previously provided for “[two] points if the defendant committed the instant offense while under any criminal
justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape
status.” Amendment 821 removed this language and substituted it with the new subsection (e), followed by
the PSR in this case.
Case: 1:22-cr-00620-JRA Doc #: 80 Filed: 12/29/25 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion for Sentence Reduction, Modification and
Resentencing Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Doc. 77) is DENIED.
Date: 	December 29, 2025 	/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:22-cr-00620-JRA Doc #: 80 Filed: 12/29/25 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>