- 1 - 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 15-20283 

v. 

 Hon. George Caram Steeh 

BORIS ZIGMOND, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SENTENCE REDUCTION (ECF NO. 471) 

 Defendant Boris Zigmond seeks a reduction in sentence pursuant to 

Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, 

Zigmond contends that he qualifies for a two-level reduction under § 4C1.1, 

which allows for an adjustment for certain “zero-point” offenders. 

In general, a district court “may not modify a term of imprisonment 

once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). However, § 3582(c)(2) 

authorizes the court to modify a sentence when a defendant “has been 

sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has 

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. The court 

may reduce a defendant’s sentence only if the sentencing factors set forth 

in § 3553(a) weigh in favor of a reduction and “if such a reduction is 

Case 2:15-cr-20283-GCS-MKM ECF No. 477, PageID.5066 Filed 04/17/24 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission,” that is, § 1B1.10. Id. Therefore, the court conducts a twostep inquiry: “A court must first determine that a reduction is consistent with 

§ 1B1.10 before it may consider whether the authorized reduction is 

warranted, either in whole or in part, according to the factors set forth in 

§ 3553(a).” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). 

Section 1B1.10 provides: 

(2) Exclusions. --A reduction in the defendant’s term of 

imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement 

and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) if-- 

(A) None of the amendments listed in subsection (d) 

is applicable to the defendant; or 

(B) An amendment listed in subsection (d) does not 

have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable 

guideline range. 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a). Subsection (d) lists the covered amendments that 

the court may apply retroactively to modify a defendant’s sentence. The 

Sentencing Commission has determined that parts A and B of Amendment 

821 – § 4A1.1(e) and § 4C1.1 – apply retroactively. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10(d) (listing of retroactive amendments). 

Relevant here, § 4C1.1 relates to “adjustments for certain zero-point 

offenders” and is applicable if the “defendant did not receive any criminal 

Case 2:15-cr-20283-GCS-MKM ECF No. 477, PageID.5067 Filed 04/17/24 Page 2 of 6
- 3 - 

history points from Chapter 4, Part A,” among other criteria. Id. Section 

4C1.1 provides 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; 

(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 (emphasis added). 

 The probation department and the government contend that Zigmond 

is disqualified from receiving an adjustment under § 4C1.1(10) because he 

received an enhancement under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) as a 

Case 2:15-cr-20283-GCS-MKM ECF No. 477, PageID.5068 Filed 04/17/24 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

supervisor. Defendant argues that he is only disqualified if he received both 

an enhancement under § 3B1.1 and was engaged in a criminal enterprise. 

The language and context of the provision does not support Defendant’s 

interpretation. Section 4C1.1 permits an adjustment “if the defendant meets 

all of the following criteria,” including that “the defendant did not receive an 

adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) and was not engaged in a 

continuing criminal enterprise.” In order to be eligible, the defendant must 

not have received an adjustment under § 3B1.1 and also must not have 

engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise. Because he must meet “all of 

the following criteria,” either condition is disqualifying. 

 District courts interpreting this provision agree. “Every court thus far 

has rejected the argument that U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(10) precludes 

Amendment 821 relief only when a defendant received a U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 

adjustment and engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise.” United States 

v. Arroyo-Mata, __ F. Supp.3d __, 2024 WL 1367796, at *2-3 n.6 (N.D. Ga. 

Apr. 1, 2024) (collecting twenty-four cases); accord United States v. 

Vladimirov, 2024 WL 1468933, at *1 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 4, 2024) (“Courts 

interpreting this provision have concluded that § 4C1.1(a) precludes a 

sentence reduction for a defendant who, although not engaged in a 

continuing criminal enterprise, nonetheless received an adjustment under 

Case 2:15-cr-20283-GCS-MKM ECF No. 477, PageID.5069 Filed 04/17/24 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

§ 3B1.1.”) (citing cases). See also United States v. Bazel, 80 F.3d 1140, 

1142 (6th Cir. 1996) (interpreting similar language in § 5C1.2 and rejecting 

defendant’s argument that “he is eligible because he was not engaged in a 

continuing criminal enterprise, even though the government did 

demonstrate that he was an ‘organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor’ of a 

criminal operation”); cf. Pulsifer v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 718, 725 

(2024) (holding safety-value provision “creates an eligibility checklist, and 

demands that a defendant satisfy every one of its conditions”). 

 Consistent with this authority, a defendant who receives an 

adjustment under § 3B1.1 does not qualify for relief under § 4C1.1. In other 

words, because Defendant received an enhancement under § 3B1.1, he 

has not met all of the criteria set forth in § 4C1.1 and he is not eligible for a 

sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. 

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for a 

reduction in sentence (ECF No. 471) is DENIED. 

Dated: April 16, 2024 s/George Caram Steeh 

 HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cr-20283-GCS-MKM ECF No. 477, PageID.5070 Filed 04/17/24 Page 5 of 6
- 6 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record 

on April  2024, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and 

also on Boris Zigmond #07790-104, FCI Miami, 

Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 779800, 

Miami, FL 33177. 

s/Lashawn Saulsberry 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:15-cr-20283-GCS-MKM ECF No. 477, PageID.5071 Filed 04/17/24 Page 6 of 6