UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES,

v. No. 18-cr-177 MARCUS PETTIFORD, a.k.a. Marquis Hines,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant Marcus Pettiford moves to reduce his sentence by thirteen months in light of

Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. See Def.’s Mot. to Reduce Sentence, ECF No. 35

(“Def.’s Mot.”). For the reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN

PART the motion and reduce Defendant’s sentence by ten months.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Legal Background

To reduce sentencing disparities, “Congress directed the United States Sentencing

Commission . . . to establish the [Sentencing] Guidelines.” Molina-Martinez v. United States,

(2016). Although a sentencing court is “not bound to apply the Guidelines,” the

court “must consult those Guidelines and take them into account.” United States v. Booker,

(2005). To do so, the “court must determine,” “at the outset” of each sentencing,

“the [defendant’s] applicable Guidelines range.” Molina-Martinez,

. “The

applicable Guidelines range is based on the seriousness of the defendant’s offense (indicted by his

‘offense level’) and his criminal history (indicated by his ‘criminal history category’).”

Page 1 of 7 This case concerns Defendant’s criminal history category, which “is determined by the

number of his criminal history points.” Nichols v. United States,

, 740 n.2 (1994). A

defendant receives points for each of his prior offenses, which establishes his criminal history

subtotal. Rosales-Mireles v. United States,

(2018). Before November 1, 2023,

a defendant also received two so-called status 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.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 (effective through Oct. 31,

2023). Although status points were meant in part to help predict a defendant’s risk of being a

repeat offender, research conducted by the Sentencing Commission showed that “the status points

provision only minimally improves the overall recidivism predictivity of the criminal history

score.” U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, REVISITING STATUS POINTS at 18 (2022), https://perma.cc/XS54-

P38S. Specifically, “status points improve the criminal history score’s successful prediction of

rearrest for only 15 out of 10,000 offenders.” Id.

In 2023, the Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines “to limit the overall criminal

history impact of ‘status points.’” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. 7. As a result of Part A of Amendment

821, “a defendant with [a criminal history subtotal of] six or [less] no longer receives any status

points, and a defendant with [a subtotal of] seven or more . . . receives only one status point.”

United States v. Rosebar, --- F.4th ---,

, at *2 (D.C. Cir. 2025). The Sentencing

Commission further determined that Part A of Amendment 821 should apply retroactively. See

, 60536 (Sept. 1, 2023). As a result, defendants who received status points

under the prior Guidelines may move for a sentence reduction if their reduced criminal history

score has the effect of lowering their Guidelines range. See

(c)(2) (providing that

“a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that

Page 2 of 7 has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission” may move for a sentence

reduction); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(A), (d) (providing that a sentence reduction is

authorized under

(c)(2) only if the Sentencing Commission makes the

Amendment retroactive).

B. Factual Background and Procedural History

In October 2018, Defendant pleaded guilty to a three-count superseding information for

(1) unlawful possession with the intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin; (2) unlawful

possession with the intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of

cocaine base, also known as crack; and (3) using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in relation to

or in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. See Statement of Offense, ECF No. 17; see also

Min. Entry (Oct. 29, 2018).

At sentencing in February 2019, the court determined that Defendant had a criminal history

subtotal of five points. Final Presentence Report at 19, ECF No. 25; see also Statement of Reasons

at 1, ECF No. 31 (adopting the Final Presentence Report without change). Because Defendant

committed the instant offenses while “in warrant status for a parole violation,” the court added two

status points under the pre-Amendment Guidelines. Final Presentence Report at 19. Defendant’s

total criminal history score of seven placed him in criminal history category four. See U.S.S.G.

ch. 5, pt. A – Sent’g Table. Based on this criminal history category and a total offense level of 23,

Defendant’s Guidelines range was 70–87 months imprisonment for Counts 1 and 2 and a

consecutive sentence of 60 months for Count 3—for a total Guidelines range of 130–147 months.

See Final Presentence Report at 7, 28. Under the applicable statutes, Count 1 carried a mandatory

minimum sentence of 60 months, see

(b)(1)(B)(i), and Count 3 carried a mandatory

consecutive sentence of at least 60 months. See

(c).

Page 3 of 7 The court found that a low-end Guidelines sentence was appropriate and sentenced

Defendant to 70 months on Counts 1 and 2, and 60 months on Count 3, to be served consecutively,

for a total sentence of 130 months. See Judgment at 3, ECF No. 30. Defendant now moves for a

thirteen-month reduction in his sentence in light of Amendment 821. See Def.’s Mot. at 2–3.

Defendant emphasizes his significant efforts at rehabilitation while imprisoned, including his

participation in substance abuse counseling and continuing education programs. See

at 4–5;

see also Def.’s Mot. Ex. 1 at 5, 7, 10, ECF No. 35-1. The Government indicated its opposition to

defense counsel but did not file any response. See Def.’s Mot. at 1.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

“As a general rule, a federal court ‘may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has

been imposed.’” United States v. Long,

, 347 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (quoting

(c)). “However, a district court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment if [his]

sentencing range ‘has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.’” Rosebar,

, at *2 (quoting

(c)(2)). To determine whether such a reduction

is authorized and appropriate, the court must follow “a two-step inquiry.” Dillon v. United States,

(2010). “At step one,” the statute “requires the court to follow the Commission’s

instructions in [U.S.S.G.] §1B1.10 to determine the prisoner’s eligibility for a sentence

modification and the extent of the reduction authorized.” Id. at 827. At step two, the statute

“instructs [the] court to consider . . . whether, in its discretion,” a reduction “is warranted in whole

or in part” in light of the sentencing factors set out in

(a).

Page 4 of 7 III. DISCUSSION

A. Defendant is Eligible for a Sentence Reduction

At step one, a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction based upon an Amendment to

the Guidelines if (1) the Amendment applies retroactively and (2) the Amendment has “the effect

of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline[s] range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. If both

requirements are met, the court may grant a sentence reduction, but the court generally may not

reduce the sentence to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. Id.

The court agrees that Defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. The Sentencing

Commission made Part A of Amendment 821 retroactive. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 60536; see also

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). And that provision has the effect of lowering Defendant’s Guidelines range.

Specifically, because Defendant would no longer receive any status points under the amended

Guidelines, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1, he now falls within criminal history category three, which

reduces his Guidelines range for Counts 1 and 2 from 70–87 months to 57–71 months. See

U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A – Sent’g Table.

However, the court cannot reduce Defendant’s sentence as much as he requests because

Count 1 carries a mandatory minimum of 60 months, see

(b)(1)(B)(i), and the court

may not reduce a sentence under

(c)(2) to a term that is less than the mandatory

minimum prescribed by statute. United States v. Branch,

(D.D.C. 2009)

(citing United States v. Profeta, No. 01-303,

, at *1 (D.C. Cir. 2001)). That is

so even if the minimum of the Guidelines range is below the statutory minimum. See Dorsey v.

United States,

, 266–67 (2012) (“[O]rdinarily no matter what range the Guidelines

set forth, a sentencing judge must sentence an offender to at least the minimum prison term set

Page 5 of 7 forth in a statutory mandatory minimum.”). Therefore, the court may only reduce the Defendant’s

sentence on Counts 1 and 2 by ten months to the statutory minimum of 60 months.

B. A 10-Month Sentence Reduction is Warranted

Even if a Defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction, the court must still determine

whether such a “reduction is warranted, either in whole or in part, according to the factors set forth

in § 3553(a).” Dillon,

. Those factors include “the nature and circumstances of

the offense,” as well as “the history and characteristics of the defendant.”

(a).

“The court may consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt.

1(B)(iii). Indeed, “extensive evidence of [a defendant’s] rehabilitation since his initial sentencing

is clearly relevant” because it “provides the most up-to-date picture of [the defendant’s] ‘history

and characteristics.’” Pepper v. United States,

, 491–92 (2011) (quoting

(a)(1)). That said, a defendant’s “progress” must be considered alongside the other factors

and is not dispositive. Cf. United States v. Lassiter,

(D.C. Cir. 2021).

A ten-month sentence reduction is warranted. Although Defendant’s underlying crimes

and prior criminal history are serious, the court determined at sentencing that a low-end Guidelines

range sentence of 70 months on Counts 1 and 2 was sufficient but no greater than necessary to

achieve the purposes of sentencing. In light of new research regarding the inefficacy of the status

points which significantly increased Defendant’s Guidelines range and extensive evidence of

Defendant’s rehabilitation, the court believes it is appropriate to reduce Defendant’s sentence to

the statutory mandatory minimum of 60 months.

Page 6 of 7 IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART

Defendant’s motion for a sentence reduction. A separate order will follow.

Date: December 8, 2025

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge

Page 7 of 7