USA v. Glenn et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JERRY D. GLENN,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Cr. No. 18-00062 HG-1
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE BASED ON
AMENDMENT 821 TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING GUIDELINES PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (ECF No. 138)
Defendant Jerry D. Glenn, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion
seeking to reduce his term of imprisonment based upon Amendment
821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
In 2023, Amendment 821 altered the sentencing guidelines of
certain zero-point offenders under Section 4C1.1 and changed the
calculation of “status points” under United States Sentencing
Guideline § 4A1.1(e).
Defendant Glenn is not eligible for a reduction in sentence
pursuant to Amendment 821. The changes made by Amendment 821 do
not alter Defendant’s total sentencing guidelines calculation of
a total offense level of 35, and a total criminal history
category of VI, for a sentencing guideline range of 292 to 365
months imprisonment. Defendant was sentenced below the
1
Case 1:18-cr-00062-HG Document 145 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

sentencing range to a total sentence of 200 months imprisonment.
There is no basis to reduce Defendant’s sentence pursuant to
Amendment 821 to the United State Sentencing Guidelines.
Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to Amendment
821 (ECF No. 138) is DENIED.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. Indictment, Guilty Plea, And Sentencing
On March 13, 2018, at the age of 51, Defendant was arrested
in Sacramento, California. (Presentence Report ¶ 2, ECF No. 80).
On May 4, 2018, Defendant made his initial appearance in
Honolulu, Hawaii, and was ordered detained pending trial. (ECF
No. 19).
On May 10, 2018, the grand jury returned an Indictment
charging Defendant Jerry Glenn and a co-defendant. Defendant was
charged in four counts:
Count 1: Defendant knowingly and intentionally conspired to
distribute, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine,
to wit: approximately 5,078 grams of
methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of
isomers, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846,
841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A).
Count 3: On or about November 23, 2016, Defendant knowingly
and intentionally distributed 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine, to wit: approximately 447 grams
of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts
of isomers, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A).
2
Case 1:18-cr-00062-HG Document 145 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

Count 6: On or about January 17, 2017, Defendant knowingly
and intentionally distributed 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine, to wit: approximately 443 grams
of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts
of isomers, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and 841(b)(1)(A).
Count 7: On or about January 18, 2017, Defendant knowingly
and intentionally distributed 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine, to wit: approximately 427 grams
of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts
of isomers, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and 841(b)(1)(A).
(Indictment, ECF No. 25).
On February 20, 2019, Defendant entered into a plea
agreement and pled guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment. (ECF
Nos. 53, 55).
On September 24, 2019, Defendant appeared for sentencing.
(ECF No. 85).
Defendant’s base offense level was calculated at 38 based on
the drug quantity table under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1).
(Presentence Report at ¶ 48, ECF No. 80). Defendant was
responsible for 5.078 kilograms of “ice.” (Id.)
Defendant received a 2-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility and a 1-level reduction for timely notifying the
Government of his intention to plead guilty. (Id. at ¶¶ 55-56).
Defendant’s total offense level was 35. (Id. at ¶ 57).
Defendant’s Criminal History Computation was based on his
extensive criminal history that included 17 adult convictions.
(Id. at ¶¶ 61-77). Defendant’s criminal convictions resulted in
3
Case 1:18-cr-00062-HG Document 145 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

a subtotal criminal history score of 27. (Id. at ¶ 78). In
addition, Defendant received 2 additional criminal history points
because Defendant committed the instant offense while Defendant
was on probation for a conviction for Grand Theft from San
Joaquin County Superior Court in Case No. CR 2016-0001386. (Id.
at ¶ 79). As a result Defendant’s total criminal history score
was 29. (Id. at ¶ 80). Defendant was therefore placed in
Criminal History Category VI based on his total criminal history
score of 29. (Id.)
Defendant’s guideline range was 292 to 365 months
imprisonment. (Id.) He was sentenced to 200 months
imprisonment, and ten years of supervised release. (Judgment,
ECF No. 86).
On May 19, 2020, Defendant, pro se, filed a motion entitled
“Motion for Compassionate Release (CR) and or Reduction in
Sentence (RIS) Under Title 18 § 4205 and 3582.” (ECF No. 105).
On May 21, 2020, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion for
failure to meet the statutory exhaustion requirement. (ECF No.
106). The Court identified additional issues Defendant should
address if he chose to file a new motion after meeting the
exhaustion requirement. (Id.)
On July 23, 2020, Defendant, through counsel, filed a motion
entitled, “Motion for Reduction in Sentence (Compassionate
Release).” (ECF No. 109).
4
Case 1:18-cr-00062-HG Document 145 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

On October 26, 2020, the Court issued an ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE UNDER THE FIRST
STEP ACT (COMPASSIONATE RELEASE).” (ECF No. 117).
On October 6, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 135). Defendant’s
Section 2255 Motion is subject to a separate order.
On October 14, 2025, Defendant filed a document entitled,
“MOTION FOR THE TWO POINT REDUCTION.” (ECF No. 138).
On October 17, 2025, the Court issued a briefing schedule.
(ECF No. 139).
On November 13, 2025, the Government filed its Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for the Two Point Reduction. (ECF No. 142).
Defendant did not file a Reply to the Government’s
Opposition.
The Court elects to decide the matter without a hearing
pursuant to District of Hawaii Local Rule 7.1(c).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Section 3582(c)(2) of Title 18 of the United States Code
permits a court to reduce a term of imprisonment if the sentence
was based on a sentencing range subsequently lowered by the
United States Sentencing Commission.
The Sentencing Commission amended United States Sentencing
Guideline § 1B1.10 to provide for a reduction in certain terms of
5
Case 1:18-cr-00062-HG Document 145 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

imprisonment as a result of amended guideline ranges provided by
Amendment 821, which became effective on February 1, 2024.
ANALYSIS
Defendant Glenn seeks a reduction in his sentence based on
Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Defendant is not eligible for a reduction in his term of
imprisonment because he has not established that his sentencing
guidelines were lowered pursuant to Amendment 821.
Amendment 821 made two significant changes in the Sentencing
Guidelines and the calculation of criminal history points.
First, Subpart B of Amendment 821 created a new guideline
found in U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, which provides for a decrease of two
offense levels for certain zero-point offenders who meet its
requirements, as follows:
(a) Adjustment.—If the defendant meets all of the
following criteria:
(1) the defendant did not receive any criminal
history points from Chapter Four, Part A;
(2) the defendant did not receive an adjustment
under §3A1.4 (Terrorism);
(3) the defendant did not use violence or
credible threats of violence in connection
with the offense;
(4) the offense did not result in death or
serious bodily injury;
6
Case 1:18-cr-00062-HG Document 145 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

(5) the instant offense of conviction is not a
sex offense;
(6) the defendant did not personally cause
substantial financial hardship;
(7) the defendant did not possess, receive,
purchase, transport, transfer, sell, or
otherwise dispose of a firearm or other
dangerous weapon (or induce another
participant to do so) in connection with the
offense;
(8) the instant offense of conviction is not
covered by §2H1.1 (Offenses Involving
Individual Rights);
(9) the defendant did not receive an adjustment
under §3A1.1 (Hate Crime Motivation or
Vulnerable Victim) or §3A1.5 (Serious Human
Rights Offense); and
(10) the defendant did not receive an adjustment
under §3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) and was not
engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise,
as defined in 21 U.S.C. §848;
decrease the offense level determined under Chapters
Two and Three by 2 levels.
U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a) (emphasis added).
Here, Defendant does not qualify for a reduction as a
certain zero-point offender pursuant to Section 4C1.1(a).
Defendant was not a zero-point offender as he received 27
criminal history points at sentencing based on his 17 prior
convictions. (Presentence Report at ¶¶ 61-77, ECF No. 80).
Section 4C.1 does not apply to lower Defendant’s sentencing
guidelines.
Second, Subpart A of Amendment 821 limits the overall
7
Case 1:18-cr-00062-HG Document 145 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

criminal history impact of “status points,” which are additional
criminal history points given to a defendant for having committed
an offense while under a criminal justice sentence, including
probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work
release, or escape status. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e).
Previously, a defendant who committed the instant offense
while under any criminal justice sentence, including probation,
received two additional criminal history points.
At sentencing, Defendant received two status points in
calculating his criminal history points because Defendant
committed the instant offense while under a sentence of probation
for his conviction for Grand Theft from San Joaquin County
Superior Court in Case No. CR 2016-0001386. (Presentence Report
at ¶ 79, ECF No. 80).
Amendment 821 altered Section 4A1.1 of the United States
Sentencing Guidelines to eliminate such status points for any
defendant who otherwise had six or fewer criminal history points.
United States v. Valle-Hurtado, 2024 WL 1299771, *2 (D. Ariz.
Mar. 27, 2024).
For a defendant such as Defendant Glenn who had seven or
more criminal history points, Amendment 821 altered Section 4A1.1
to lower the calculation of status points from two status points
to one status point. United States v. Ward, 2024 WL 1053765, at
*1 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2024).
8
Case 1:18-cr-00062-HG Document 145 Filed 01/12/26 Page 8 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

Here, the changes in the sentencing guidelines under
Amendment 821 for the calculation of status points would lower
Defendant’s criminal history calculation from 29 to 28 based on
Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The
change, however, does not lower Defendant’s criminal history
category calculation because 28 criminal history points would
still place Defendant in Criminal History Category VI.
Defendants with 13 or more criminal history points are subject to
Criminal History Category VI. The changes made by Amendment 821
do not alter Defendant’s Criminal History Category of VI, or his
total sentencing guideline calculation of 292 to 365 months.
In sum, the changes to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines based on Amendment 821 do not lower Defendant’s
overall sentencing guidelines calculation and do not provide a
basis for the Court to alter Defendant’s sentence. No other
amendment applies to lower Defendant’s sentence. Defendant is
not entitled to a reduction in his term of imprisonment pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
//
//
//
//
//
//
9
Case 1:18-cr-00062-HG Document 145 Filed 01/12/26 Page 9 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence based upon Amendment
821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (ECF No. 138) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 12, 2026, Honolulu, Hawaii.
United States v. Jerry N. Glenn, Cr. No. 18-00062 HG-1, ORDER
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE BASED ON AMENDMENT
821 TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING GUIDELINES PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (ECF No. 138)
10
Case 1:18-cr-00062-HG Document 145 Filed 01/12/26 Page 10 of 10
PageID.<pageID>