UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. Criminal Action No. 15-88 (JEB)
MARLON HAIGHT,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This Court sentenced Defendant Marlon Haight on April 17, 2023, to 152 months’
incarceration for six counts of drug-trafficking and gun-possession charges. His sentence
comprises concurrent terms of 92 months for the first, second, third, and fifth counts; a
concurrent term of 60 months for the fourth count; and a consecutive term of 60 months for the
sixth count. See ECF No. 129 (Am. Judgment) at ECF p. 3. Haight now moves to reduce his
sentence by 14 months pursuant to a 2023 amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines that
limits the impact of “status points” on criminal-history scores, thereby potentially reducing
sentence lengths for qualifying defendants. See Amend. 821 (Part A), U.S.S.C. (eff. Nov. 1,
2023); ECF No. 134 (Mot.) at 1. The Government concedes that Haight qualifies for a sentence
reduction under the amendment but opposes its application here. See ECF No. 136 (Opp.) at 1.
Because the balance of factors supports a reduction, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion and
reduce his sentence to 138 months.
1 I. Background
On June 30, 2016, a jury convicted Haight of Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with
Intent to Distribute 28 Grams or More of Cocaine Base, Cocaine, and Marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii), (b)(1)(C), and (b)(1)(D) (Count 1); Unlawful
Possession with Intent to Distribute 28 Grams or More of Cocaine Base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii) (Count 2); Unlawful Possession with Intent to Distribute
Cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count 3); Unlawful Possession
with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D) (Count
4); Unlawful Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition by a Person Convicted of a Crime
Punishable by Imprisonment for a Term Exceeding One Year, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (Count 5); and Using, Carrying, and Possessing a Firearm During a Drug Trafficking
Offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Count 6). See Am. Judgment at ECF pp. 1–2.
This Court first sentenced Defendant on December 1, 2016, to 152 months in prison,
allocated as described above. See ECF No. 83 (Judgment) at ECF pp. 1, 3. The Government
appealed in search of a higher sentence of 240 months, see ECF No. 89 (Notice of Appeal),
under the theory that Haight qualified as an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1)
— a contention that this Court had rejected. See ECF No. 72 (Gov’t Sent’g Mem.) at 4–8. The
Supreme Court ultimately held in Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021), that reckless
crimes are not “crimes of violence” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Id. at 445. With
Defendant squarely out of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s penalty-enhancement zone, this
Court reaffirmed its original sentence of 152 months on April 17, 2023. See Am. Judgment at
ECF p. 3. Under this sentence, Defendant has a projected release date of February 5, 2027. See
Mot. at 2.
2 II. Legal Standard
Federal courts generally “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), aside from “a few narrow exceptions.” Freeman v. United
States, 564 U.S. 522, 526 (2011). One such exception provides for a sentence reduction when
the sentencing range that guided a defendant’s original term of imprisonment has since been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In 2023, the Commission
adopted an amendment that removed subsection (d) of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1, which had added two
“status points” to a defendant’s criminal-history score for committing an offense “while under
any criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment,
work release, or escape status.” The original subsection (d) was replaced by the original
subsection (e), and a new subsection (e) now reads as follows:
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.
Under Part A of Amendment 821, then, a defendant no longer receives two more “status
points” for committing an offense while under a separate sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1,
application note 5. The Sentencing Commission voted to give Part A of Amendment 821
retroactive force and authorized sentence reductions under the provision to come into effect
beginning February 1, 2024. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(e)(2).
Courts may grant a sentence reduction based on a retroactive amendment if (1) the
defendant’s original sentence was based on a Guidelines range that was subsequently lowered
and (2) the balance of factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) favors such a reduction “in whole
or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817,
3 827 (2010). The accompanying policy statement for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction, codified at
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, advises courts to “substitute the amended Guidelines range while ‘leav[ing]
all other guideline application decisions unaffected.’” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 821 (alteration in
original) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10). While a court has discretion to determine whether and to
what extent to reduce a sentence, id. at 827–29, this discretion is not unlimited; courts may not
reduce a sentence “to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range”
except in limited circumstances. Id. at 822 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)).
III. Analysis
Both sides agree that Haight is eligible for a reduction under Amendment 821 because he
received two additional “status points” for committing his offense while under a sentence
imposed by the D.C. Superior Court. See Opp. at 5; Mot. at 2. Applying the Amendment, he
would receive no extra points, putting him into Criminal History Category III instead of IV and
setting his guideline range for Counts 1–3 and 5 at 78–97 months instead of 92–115 months. See
Mot. at 4. Defendant thus asks the Court to convert the lower end of the sentence he received for
those counts to the lower end of the new range, shaving 14 months off his sentence. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. Criminal Action No. 15-88 (JEB)
MARLON HAIGHT,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This Court sentenced Defendant Marlon Haight on April 17, 2023, to 152 months’
incarceration for six counts of drug-trafficking and gun-possession charges. His sentence
comprises concurrent terms of 92 months for the first, second, third, and fifth counts; a
concurrent term of 60 months for the fourth count; and a consecutive term of 60 months for the
sixth count. See ECF No. 129 (Am. Judgment) at ECF p. 3. Haight now moves to reduce his
sentence by 14 months pursuant to a 2023 amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines that
limits the impact of “status points” on criminal-history scores, thereby potentially reducing
sentence lengths for qualifying defendants. See Amend. 821 (Part A), U.S.S.C. (eff. Nov. 1,
2023); ECF No. 134 (Mot.) at 1. The Government concedes that Haight qualifies for a sentence
reduction under the amendment but opposes its application here. See ECF No. 136 (Opp.) at 1.
Because the balance of factors supports a reduction, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion and
reduce his sentence to 138 months.
1 I. Background
On June 30, 2016, a jury convicted Haight of Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with
Intent to Distribute 28 Grams or More of Cocaine Base, Cocaine, and Marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii), (b)(1)(C), and (b)(1)(D) (Count 1); Unlawful
Possession with Intent to Distribute 28 Grams or More of Cocaine Base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii) (Count 2); Unlawful Possession with Intent to Distribute
Cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count 3); Unlawful Possession
with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D) (Count
4); Unlawful Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition by a Person Convicted of a Crime
Punishable by Imprisonment for a Term Exceeding One Year, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (Count 5); and Using, Carrying, and Possessing a Firearm During a Drug Trafficking
Offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Count 6). See Am. Judgment at ECF pp. 1–2.
This Court first sentenced Defendant on December 1, 2016, to 152 months in prison,
allocated as described above. See ECF No. 83 (Judgment) at ECF pp. 1, 3. The Government
appealed in search of a higher sentence of 240 months, see ECF No. 89 (Notice of Appeal),
under the theory that Haight qualified as an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1)
— a contention that this Court had rejected. See ECF No. 72 (Gov’t Sent’g Mem.) at 4–8. The
Supreme Court ultimately held in Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021), that reckless
crimes are not “crimes of violence” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Id. at 445. With
Defendant squarely out of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s penalty-enhancement zone, this
Court reaffirmed its original sentence of 152 months on April 17, 2023. See Am. Judgment at
ECF p. 3. Under this sentence, Defendant has a projected release date of February 5, 2027. See
Mot. at 2.
2 II. Legal Standard
Federal courts generally “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), aside from “a few narrow exceptions.” Freeman v. United
States, 564 U.S. 522, 526 (2011). One such exception provides for a sentence reduction when
the sentencing range that guided a defendant’s original term of imprisonment has since been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In 2023, the Commission
adopted an amendment that removed subsection (d) of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1, which had added two
“status points” to a defendant’s criminal-history score for committing an offense “while under
any criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment,
work release, or escape status.” The original subsection (d) was replaced by the original
subsection (e), and a new subsection (e) now reads as follows:
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.
Under Part A of Amendment 821, then, a defendant no longer receives two more “status
points” for committing an offense while under a separate sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1,
application note 5. The Sentencing Commission voted to give Part A of Amendment 821
retroactive force and authorized sentence reductions under the provision to come into effect
beginning February 1, 2024. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(e)(2).
Courts may grant a sentence reduction based on a retroactive amendment if (1) the
defendant’s original sentence was based on a Guidelines range that was subsequently lowered
and (2) the balance of factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) favors such a reduction “in whole
or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817,
3 827 (2010). The accompanying policy statement for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction, codified at
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, advises courts to “substitute the amended Guidelines range while ‘leav[ing]
all other guideline application decisions unaffected.’” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 821 (alteration in
original) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10). While a court has discretion to determine whether and to
what extent to reduce a sentence, id. at 827–29, this discretion is not unlimited; courts may not
reduce a sentence “to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range”
except in limited circumstances. Id. at 822 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)).
III. Analysis
Both sides agree that Haight is eligible for a reduction under Amendment 821 because he
received two additional “status points” for committing his offense while under a sentence
imposed by the D.C. Superior Court. See Opp. at 5; Mot. at 2. Applying the Amendment, he
would receive no extra points, putting him into Criminal History Category III instead of IV and
setting his guideline range for Counts 1–3 and 5 at 78–97 months instead of 92–115 months. See
Mot. at 4. Defendant thus asks the Court to convert the lower end of the sentence he received for
those counts to the lower end of the new range, shaving 14 months off his sentence. Id.
Since he is clearly eligible for the reduction, Defendant’s request thus turns on a balance
of the § 3553(a) factors, which require the Court to consider:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; [and] (2) the need for the sentence imposed— (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner . . . .
4 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The main point of contention between the parties concerns the
§ 3553(a)(2)(C) factor — i.e., whether Haight’s post-conviction behavior belies his assurances
that he is not a violent and dangerous person and that he is not at risk of falling into recidivism
when he returns to the community. See Opp. at 9–10; Mot. at 5–6.
The Government argues that the disciplinary infractions that Defendant has accrued while
incarcerated demonstrate the need to maintain his original sentence of 152 months. See Opp. at
9. The defense parries that Haight has not incurred any infractions since October 2020, which is
also when he began to receive medical treatment that has since brought at least one of his
behavioral diagnoses into remission. See Mot. at 5; ECF Nos. 134-1 (BOP Records) at ECF p. 7;
134-2 (Mental Health Records) at 2 (filed under seal). It also correctly notes that this Court was
aware of the infractions at the time of Haight’s resentencing and determined that the bottom of
the sentencing range was still appropriate. See Mot. at 4–5, 6; ECF Nos. 132 (Resentencing
Hr’g Trans.) at 3–5; 128 (Gov’t 2d Sent’g Mem.) at 2–3. Not only has Haight not incurred any
new infractions since the Court saw him last, but he has also completed a drug-education
program; intends to participate in a drug-treatment program; is taking cognitive-behavioral-
therapy-based anger-management classes; and does custodial work for his 120-person unit. See
Mot. at 5–6 (citing BOP Records at 5–6).
The Court accordingly believes that a sentence at the bottom of the new range would
serve as just punishment. Since the bottom of that range has decreased to 78 months for Counts
1–3 and 5, this Court agrees that Haight should have 14 months’ less time in prison.
IV. Conclusion
As Haight has established that he is eligible for a reduction, which the balance of
sentencing factors supports, the Court will amend its Judgment to reflect a 138-month sentence.
5 /s/ James E. Boasberg JAMES E. BOASBERG Chief Judge Date: June 17, 2025