USA v. LOMAX et al

AO 247 (Rev. 03/19) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 	Page 1 of 2 (Page 2 Not for Public Disclosure)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
__________ District of __________
United States of America )
)
)
)
)
)
v.
Case No:
USM No:
Date of Original Judgment:
Date of Previous Amended Judgment:
(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) 	Defendant’s Attorney
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
Upon motion of 	u the defendant u the Director of the Bureau of Prisons u the court under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10
and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:
u DENIED. 	u GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in
the last judgment issued) of 	months is reduced to 	.
(See Page 2 for additional parts. Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)
Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated 	shall remain in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Order Date:
Effective Date: (if different from order date)
Southern District of Indiana
ANTHONY LOMAX 	1:12-cr-00189-SEB-MJD-3
11112-028
08/12/2014
07/07/2021
✔
✔
07/17/2021
12/18/2025	_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Case 1:12-cr-00189-SEB-MJD Document 768 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:12-cr-00189-SEB-MJD
)
ANTOHNY LOMAX, 	) 	-03
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Anthony Lomax's Motion to Reduce Sentence filed
pursuant to USSG Amendment 821 [Dkts 759 and 765]. The Government has filed its response
in opposition to the motion.
Being duly advised, the Court hereby DENIES the motion, finding Petitioner ineligible
for a reduced sentence based on this amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines for the reason that
applying the Amendment would not result in a reduction of Petitioner's guideline range. USSG §
1B1.10.
Pursuant to the holding in Dillon v. U.S., 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010) and the requirements
set out in the applicable statutes (ie, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the Sentencing Guidelines (§§
4A1.1(a) and (e)), the changes effectuated by Amendment 821 to the Guidelines do not apply to
Petitioner because he was sentenced as a career offender, which placed him automatically in
Category VI criminal history with a Guideline Range of 360-1,320 months. His guideline range
therefore would not be reduced by a change in his status points, thus making him ineligible for a
reduced sentence. To qualify for relief under § 3582(c)(2), a petitioner's sentencing range must
be lowered by the Amendment.
Case 1:12-cr-00189-SEB-MJD Document 768 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Petitioner Lomax's sentence was not determined with reference to any sentencing
guideline computation as such, only his career offender status, which placed him in criminal
history Category VI. 	Accordingly, the Amendment does apply or affect his overall sentence.
To be eligible for relief, the sentencing range must be lowered by the applicable amendment. His
motion for reduction of sentence must be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: ________________________
Distribution:
Counsel of Record via CM/ECF
Anthony Lomax
#11112-028
Federal Correctional Institution – Hazelton
1640 SKY VIEW DRIVE
BRUCETON MILLS, WV 26525
12/18/2025	_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Case 1:12-cr-00189-SEB-MJD Document 768 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>