USA v. Aloisio et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:18-CR-00017-22-DCLC-CRW
)
TIMOTHY BARRY HALL 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Timothy Barry Hall’s Motion for Sentence
Reduction under Guideline Amendment 821, Part A [Doc. 2004], which the Federal Defender
Services of Eastern Tennessee’s (“FDSET”) has filed on his behalf, the United States’s Response
in Opposition [Doc. 2011], and FDSET’s Reply [Doc. 2015]. For the reasons herein, the Court
will deny Mr. Hall’s motion.
I. 	B ACKGROUND
In 2018, a federal grand jury indicted Mr. Hall on charges of conspiring to distribute
fifty grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)
and 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count One); possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking
offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count Twenty-Two); and conspiring to
commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count Thirty). [Indictment,
Doc. 3, at 1–2, 15, 17–18]. He later entered into a plea agreement with the United States and
pleaded guilty to Count One. [Plea Agreement, Doc. 539, at 1].
At sentencing, he had a criminal history category of V and a total offense level of 27,
which together yielded an advisory guidelines range of 120 to 150 months’ imprisonment,
[PSR, Doc. 701, ¶ 89; Statement of Reasons, Doc. 818, at 1], but he was subject to a 120-
Case 2:18-cr-00017-DCLC-CRW Document 2065 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 7
PageID #: <pageID>

2
month mandatory minimum sentence under § 841(b)(1)(A). See [Statement of Reasons at 1].
The Court sentenced him to 120 months. [J., Doc. 817, at 2].
On Mr. Hall’s behalf, FDSET now moves the Court to reduce his sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to Appendix C of the United States Sentencing
Commission Guidelines Manual. The United States opposes his motion. Having carefully
reviewed the parties’ arguments, the Court is now prepared to rule on Mr. Hall’s motion.
II. L EGAL S TANDARD
“Federal courts are forbidden, as a general matter, to ‘modify a term of imprisonment once
it has been imposed,’ but the rule of finality is subject to a few narrow exceptions.” Freeman v.
United States, 564 U.S. 522, 526 (2011) (internal quotation omitted). Congress enacted one of
those exceptions in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which states:
[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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the
term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to
the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
In short, a defendant will be eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) if he satisfies two
requirements. See United States v. McClain, 691 F.3d 774, 777 (6th Cir. 2012) (stating that the
defendant “must show” that she is entitled to a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2)).
First, the defendant must have “been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” United
States v. Taylor, 815 F.3d 248, 250 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2));1 see U.S.
1 This is so because Congress has “charge[ed] the Commission both with deciding whether to amend the
Guidelines and with determining whether and to what extent an amendment will be retroactive.” Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010) (footnote committed) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), (u))).
Case 2:18-cr-00017-DCLC-CRW Document 2065 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 7
PageID #: <pageID>

3
Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(1) cmt. n.1(A) (“Eligibility for consideration under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment . . . that lowers the applicable guideline
range[.]”).2 In determining whether a defendant was sentenced “based on a sentencing range
that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the
Court identifies the amended guidelines range—that is, the guidelines range that would have
applied to the defendant if the applicable amendment had been in effect during sentencing—and
substitutes this guidelines range for the original guidelines range. Dillon v. United States, 560
U.S. 817, 827 (2010); U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(1).
Second, a reduction must be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.” Taylor, 815 F.3d at 250 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). USSG
§ 1B1.10 contains the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements. See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines
Manual 	§ 1B1.10(a)(1) 	(providing 	that 	a 	reduction 	“shall 	be 	consistent 	with 	this 	policy
statement”). A reduction is consistent with USSG § 1B1.10 when the amendment at issue (1)
applies to the defendant and (2) “ha[s] the effect of lowering [that] defendant’s applicable
guideline range.” Id. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(A)–(B).
Lastly, the Court must consider any applicable factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as
well as public-safety factors, when determining—in its discretion—whether a reduction “is
warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Dillon, 560 U.S.
at 827; see United States v. Curry, 606 F.3d 323, 330 (6th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he district court may
reduce a previously imposed sentence if [the] statutory requirements . . . are met. Section 3582
does not create a right to a reduced sentence, however.” (citing U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual
2 “[C]ommentary in the Guidelines Manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it
violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.”
United States v. Douglas, 634 F.3d 852, 862 (6th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (footnote omitted) (quoting Stinson
v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993))).
Case 2:18-cr-00017-DCLC-CRW Document 2065 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 7
PageID #: <pageID>

4
§ 1B1.10 cmt. background)); U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(i) (stating
that courts “shall consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)”); U.S. Sent’g Guidelines
Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(ii)–(iii) (providing that courts “shall consider the nature and
seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that may be posed by a reduction in
the defendant’s term of imprisonment” and “may consider post-sentencing conduct of the
defendant”).
III. ANALYSIS
In 2023, the Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress a multi-part amendment to
the Sentencing Guidelines’s criminal history rules: Amendment 821 in Appendix C to the
Guidelines Manual. The Sentencing Commission gave retroactive effect to two parts of that
amendment: Part A and Part B, Subpart 1. U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d); U.S.
Sent’g Guidelines Suppl. to app. C, amend. 825. Part A of Amendment 821 addresses “status
points” under USSG § 4A1.1. Status points are the criminal history points that apply to
defendants who have committed their underlying federal offense while serving a prior criminal
sentence—most often probation, parole, or supervised release. Specifically, Part A decreases
status points from two points to one point for defendants with seven or more criminal history
points and eliminates status points for defendants with six or fewer criminal history points. As
amended by Amendment 821, § 4A1.1 in Chapter Four of the Guidelines Manual now reads:
The total points from subsections (a) through (e) determine the criminal history
category in the Sentencing Table in Chapter Five, Part A.
(a) Add 3 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year
and one month.
(b) Add 2 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment of at least sixty days
not counted in (a).
Case 2:18-cr-00017-DCLC-CRW Document 2065 Filed 11/19/25 Page 4 of 7
PageID #: <pageID>

5
(c) Add 1 point for each prior sentence not counted in (a) or (b), up to a total
of 4 points for this subsection.
(d) Add 1 point for each prior sentence resulting from a conviction of a crime of
violence that did not receive any points under (a), (b), or (c) above because such
sentence was treated as a single sentence, up to a total of 3 points for this
subsection.
(e) Add 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.
U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1.
In moving for a sentence reduction under Part A, FDSET does not expressly argue that
Mr. Hall is eligible for a sentence reduction. Instead, it “asks this Court to explicitly include
his amended criminal history point total and resulting amended criminal history category in its
order . . . so that the BOP can incorporate those changes into its security level and PATTERN
score calculations.” [Def.’s Mot. at 4]. In response, the United States asserts that Mr. Hall is
ineligible for a sentence reduction “because his existing sentence is the lowest authorized by
law.” [United States’s Resp. at 2].
At sentencing, Mr. Hall received eight criminal history points and two status points for
a total criminal history score of 10. [PSR ¶¶ 61–63]. Under Part A, he is now entitled to the
elimination of his status points, see U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1(e), without which
his total criminal history score is 8 instead of 10. A criminal history score of 8 results in a
criminal history category of IV rather than V, and alongside Mr. Hall’s total offense level of
27, his amended guidelines range—that is, the guidelines range that would have applied to him
if Amendment 821 had been in effect during his sentencing—is 100 to 125 months.
But again, Mr. Hall’s conviction carries a 120-month statutory mandatory minimum
sentence, and the Court sentenced him to 120 months. “[A] reduction in the defendant’s term of
Case 2:18-cr-00017-DCLC-CRW Document 2065 Filed 11/19/25 Page 5 of 7
PageID #: <pageID>

6
imprisonment is not authorized” if “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).” USSG § 1B1.10 cmt.
n.1(A). “Whether a sentence is ‘based on’ the mandatory minimum or the advisory guidelines
turns on ‘what the district court actually said and did at the original sentencing,’” as well as the
parties’ conduct and the attorneys’ arguments. United States v. McClain, 691 F.3d 774, 778
(6th Cir. 2012) (footnote and quotation omitted).
At sentencing, Mr. Hall acknowledged that he was subject to a statutory mandatory
minimum sentence of 120 months and argued it was the appropriate sentence. [Def.’s Sent’g
Mem., Doc. 791, at 1, 10]. The Court imposed that mandatory minimum sentence, [Statement
of Reasons at 1]; see [Def.’s Mot. at 1 (“The Court imposed the statutory mandatory minimum
incarceration term of 120 months.”)], and in doing so, it based his sentence on a statutory
mandatory minimum rather than a “sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by
the Sentencing Commission” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Mr. Hall is therefore not eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment
821. USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); see United States v. Coats, 530 F. App’x 553, 555 (6th Cir.
2013) (“Because the Sentencing Commission’s amendments to the . . . guidelines have no
effect on statutory minimum sentences mandated by Congress, [the defendant’s] sentence was
not ‘based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission.’” (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2))); United States v. Corthion, No. 1:15-cr-10022-
JDB-1, 2024 WL 4683671, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 5, 2024) (“[B]ecause [the defendant] was
sentenced pursuant to a statutory mandatory minimum and not a sentencing range that was
Case 2:18-cr-00017-DCLC-CRW Document 2065 Filed 11/19/25 Page 6 of 7
PageID #: <pageID>

7
subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission, this Court has no authority to reduce his
sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821.” (citations omitted)).
IV. CONCLUSION
Mr. Hall received the lowest sentence authorized by statute, and the Court is without
authority under § 3582(c)(2) to impose a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum
sentence that he received. FDSET therefore fails demonstrate that he is entitled to a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821, and his motion [Doc. 2004] is therefore
DENIED.
SO ORDERED:
s/ Clifton L. Corker
United States District Judge
Case 2:18-cr-00017-DCLC-CRW Document 2065 Filed 11/19/25 Page 7 of 7
PageID #: <pageID>