Prisons – Prisoner’s sentence is reduced yet again

Where the court previously reduced the prisoner’s sentence from 216 months to 194 months, because a change in the law meant he was no longer a career offender, it now reduced the sentence again – to 175 months.

Background

On Oct. 30, 2014, Kareem Allen Shaw pled guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute a measurable quantity of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin. The court sentenced Shaw to 216 months of incarceration and five years of supervised release.

On Aug. 16, 2020, Shaw filed his first motion for compassionate release, arguing among other things that following a change in the law, he no longer would be considered a career offender under § 4B1.1(a) of the guidelines. The court agreed and reduced Shaw’s sentence from 216 months to 194 months.

Shaw has now filed a second motion for compassionate release, seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that because this court found in 2021 that if he were sentenced today he no longer would be a career offender, it can reduce his sentence based on the changes brought about by Amendment 821. Shaw’s motion requires the court to consider (1) if he exhausted his administrative remedies; (2) if so, whether there are extraordinary and compelling reasons that warrant a reduction in his sentence and (3) if so, what, if any, sentence reduction is appropriate after considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Exhaustion

Shaw avers that he emailed the RIS coordinator asking for a reduction in his sentence but received no response, and that his request for a copy of the email he sent went unanswered. He made a second request for a sentence reduction on July 2, 2025, albeit after he had filed his motion with this court, and received no response.

Under these circumstances, the Bureau of Prisons, or BOP, has had an adequate opportunity to address Shaw’s request and dismissing his case without prejudice so that he could refile it would be futile and a waste of judicial resources. Accordingly, the court finds that Shaw exhausted his administrative remedies and will address his claim on the merits.

Extraordinary and compelling

Shaw seeks relief under USSG §§ 1B1.13(b)(6) and (c), which provide that in some circumstances, when a defendant is serving an unusually long sentence, a change in the law can create an extraordinary and compelling reason that warrants a sentence reduction. Before addressing Shaw’s arguments on the merits, the government asserts that the Sentencing Commission exceeded its authority when it amended the policy statement at USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6), and that the policy statement is at odds with 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s plain text, context and purpose, and also that it is in tension with the doctrine of separation of powers.

However, these arguments are foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit‘s decision in United States v. Davis, 99 F.4th 647 (4th Cir. 2024), and the Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481 (2022). The court thus finds that §§ 1B1.13(b)(6) and (c) of the guidelines are consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). The Commission did not exceed its authority when it amended the policy statement, and the court will apply the Commission’s interpretation of what constitutes an extraordinary and compelling circumstance warranting a sentence  reduction to Shaw’s case.

Turning to the merits, if Shaw were sentenced today, he would not be designated a career offender, and without that designation, the changes brought about by Amendment 821 would apply to him, meaning that he would receive 9 criminal history points instead of 10. That would place him in criminal history category IV, which, when considered with his total offense level of 37, would result in a guidelines range of 292 to 365 months. A 40 percent reduction off the bottom of the guidelines range would result in a sentence of 175 months.

The court finds that the 19-month difference between Shaw’s current sentence of 194 months and the 175-month sentence he likely would be assessed today is a “gross disparity” that establishes an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction in accordance with USSG §§ 1B1.13(b)(6).

Section 3553(a) factors

After considering the parties’ arguments and the applicable § 3553(a) factors, the court concludes that a sentence of 175 months is appropriate. Such a sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to reflect the seriousness of Shaw’s conduct and criminal history, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford specific and general deterrence and protect the public.

Defendant’s motion for sentence reduction granted.

United States v. Shaw, Case No. 5:13-cr-00025, April 15, 2026. WDVA at Harrisonburg (Urbanski). VLW 026-3-175. 16 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-175
Virginia Lawyers Weekly