UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 2:16 CR 161

)

JOHN BUNCICH )

OPINION and ORDER

Before the court is defendant John Buncich’s Motion for Sentence Reduction

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Part B of Amendment 821 to the United States

Sentencing Guidelines. (DE # 276.) 

In April 2023, the United States Sentencing Commission voted to change how

a defendant’s criminal history is calculated for sentencing. These changes, generally

referred to as “Amendment 821,” took effect on November 1, 2023. Part A of

Amendment 821 is irrelevant to this case, but defendant seeks relief under Part B,

which created a new § 4C1.1 guideline. That new guideline provides a decrease of

two offense levels for defendants who did not receive any criminal history points

under Chapter Four of the Guidelines and whose instant offense did not involve

specified aggravating factors. The Sentencing Commission has given retroactive

effect to Amendment 821. See N.D. Ind. Gen. Order 2023-32, available at

https://www.innd.uscourts.gov/sites/ innd/files/2023-32.pdf. 

One of the requirements for eligibility under Part B of Amendment 821 is that

“the defendant did not receive an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) and

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cr-00161-JTM-JEM document 283 filed 06/04/24 page 1 of 3
was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 848.”

§ 4C1.1(a)(10). Here, defendant clearly received a four-level upward adjustment

under § 3B1.1(c) for his aggravating role as an organizer or leader. (Sentencing Tr.,

DE # 214 at 113; Resentencing Tr., DE # 273 at 15.) Defendant admits this fact in his

own motion. (DE # 276 at 4.) 

It is worth noting that § 4C1.1(a)(10) lists two criteria, unlike all of the other

subsections, which list only one. To repeat, § 4C1.1(a)(10) requires that: “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.” Id.

(emphasis added). Perhaps defendant would argue that he satisfies § 4C1.1(a)(10)

because he meets one of the two criteria, though he did not explicitly make such an

argument. Even if he had, though, the argument would have failed. Section

4C1.1(a)(10) does not state that satisfaction of either the first or second criteria will

suffice. Rather, it requires satisfaction of the first “and” second criteria.

§ 4C1.1(a)(10) (emphasis added). As another court under the Seventh Circuit’s

purview recently clarified, “‘[n]o defendant who receives an Aggravating Role

Adjustment under § 3B1.1 of the Guidelines can ever be eligible for the Zero-Point

Offender Adjustment under § 4C1.1(a)’” United States v. Acosta, No. 3:18-CR-30110

-NJR-1, 2024 WL 1836403, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 26, 2024) (quoting United States v.

Mahee, No. 121CR00494SDGJSA1, 2023 WL 8452433, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 6, 2023)).

2

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cr-00161-JTM-JEM document 283 filed 06/04/24 page 2 of 3
For the reasons set forth above, defendant’s motion under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 is DENIED. (DE # 276.)

SO ORDERED.

Date: June 4, 2024

s/James T. Moody

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cr-00161-JTM-JEM document 283 filed 06/04/24 page 3 of 3