1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODNEY ROWSEY,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-CR-00340-4

Judge Mary M. Rowland

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Rodney Rowsey seeks a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. [826]. 

For the reasons herein, the Court denies Rowsey’s motion for a reduced sentence. 

[826].

I. Background

On May 20, 2021, the Special May 2019 Grand Jury returned a seventeen-count 

superseding indictment charging Rowsey and co-defendants with various drug and 

money laundering offenses. [378]. Count One of the indictment charged the 

defendants with conspiracy to knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to 

distribute a controlled substance, namely a quantity containing a detectable amount 

of heroin and a quantity containing a detectable amount of fentanyl, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. §846. Id. With respect to Mr. Rowsey, the offense as charged in Count One 

involved one kilogram or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable 

amount of heroin. Id. 

Case: 1:20-cr-00340 Document #: 857 Filed: 09/03/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:4798
2

On November 10, 2022, Mr. Rowsey entered a blind plea of guilty to Count One of 

the superseding indictment. [693]. On February 7, 2023, Mr. Rowsey was sentenced 

to a term of 48 months on Count One. [728]. 

Mr. Rowsey, acting pro se, now moves for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(2) based on Part B, Subpart 1 of Amendment 821 of the Sentencing 

Guidelines. [826]. He argues that Amendment 821’s 2-point criminal history 

reduction applies to his sentence. [826] at 1-2 (citing § 4C1.1.). The Government 

opposes because Mr. Rowsey was sentenced below both the original and amended 

Guidelines minimum range. [836] at 4, 6.

II. Analysis

a. Standard of Review

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) allows a district court to reduce a defendant’s sentence if 

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

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

“[A]fter considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are 

applicable,” the Court can make such a reduction, “consistent with applicable policy 

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. Courts may take such action 

upon their own motion, or that of a defendant or the Bureau of Prisons. Id.

“§ 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentencing. Instead, it permits a sentence 

reduction within the narrow bounds established by the Commission.” Dillon v. United 

States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010). Critically, this Court may only reduce a sentence if 

the pertinent amendment would effectively lower the defendant’s applicable guideline 

Case: 1:20-cr-00340 Document #: 857 Filed: 09/03/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:4799
3

range. See, e.g., United States v. Griffin, 652 F.3d 793, 803 (7th Cir. 2011) (emphasis 

added). Also, “[a]ny reduction must be consistent with applicable policy statements 

issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 821.

Dillon sets forth a two-prong analysis where “[a]t step one, § 3582(c)(2) requires 

courts to follow the Commission’s instruction in § 1B1.10” to determine eligibility for 

a sentence reduction. 560 U.S. at 827. Step two instructs courts to consider any 

applicable § 3553(a) factors to determine whether the sentence reduction is 

warranted. Id. (quotations omitted). The section 3553(a) factors cannot overcome or 

outweigh step one in the proceedings under § 3582(c)(2). Id. 

Amendment 821 Part B, Subpart 1 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, 

made effective in November 2023, instituted a two-level reduction for some offenders’

Chapter Two offense level. U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 (2023). The amendment allows courts to 

reduce a sentence for offenders who have no criminal history points and were 

convicted of an offense that did not involve the criteria listed under § 4C1.1(a)(2)-(10).

Id. As of February 1, 2024, Amendment 821 applies retroactively. See U.S.S.G. § 

1B1.10(d) (2023).

b. Amendment 821 Applies, but the Below Guidelines Variance 

Precludes Sentence Reduction 

The original Presentence Investigation Report assigned Mr. Rowsey an offense 

level of 29 and criminal history category of I, resulting in a guideline range calculation 

of 87 to 108 months. [708] ¶¶ 27, 39, 93. The Court confirmed the same guideline 

range at sentencing. [729]. 

Case: 1:20-cr-00340 Document #: 857 Filed: 09/03/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:4800
4

The Government concedes now that Amendment 821 applies to Mr. Rowsey’s 

conviction and would lower his offense level from 29 to 27, ultimately decreasing the 

guideline range to 70 to 87 months. [836] at 4; (see also, [708-1] at 4. However, as 

noted in the Court’s Statement of Reasons, Mr. Rowsey was sentenced to 48 months

per 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), the statutory safety valve. This variance thus set Mr. 

Rowsey’s sentence below the minimum sentencing guideline range. [729] at II(B). The 

Government argues that the variance given by the sentencing court precludes Mr. 

Rowsey from a sentence reduction under Amendment 821. [836] at 4. The Court 

agrees. 

The relevant policy statement pertaining to § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821\ for 

the Dillon analysis is U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id. at 827. Section 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) explains:

“Except as provided in subdivision (B), the court shall not reduce the defendant’s term 

of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that 

is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range determined under 

subdivision (1) of this subsection.” U.S.C 1B1.10(b)(2)(A).1

Here, Mr. Rowsey was sentenced to 48 months incarceration, 39 months below the 

original minimum guidelines range of 87 months, and 22 months below the amended 

range of 70 months. [729]; [836] at 2. This below minimum variance was given 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), the statutory safety valve. See [729] at II(B). Mr. 

1 The Court agrees with the Government that Mr. Rowsey received a downward variance based on 

the § 3553(a) factors. Thus, the substantial assistance exception in Section 1B1.10(b)(2)(b) does not 

apply.

Case: 1:20-cr-00340 Document #: 857 Filed: 09/03/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:4801
5

Rowsey is therefore ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821. The 

Court thus need not move to an analysis of the §3553(a) factors.

This ruling does not conflict with the Seventh Circuit’s recent holding in United 

States v. Cervantes, No. 24-1226, 2024 WL 3544120 (7th Cir. 2024). There, the 

Seventh Circuit found the reviewing district court mistakenly used the PSIR offense 

level to decide the defendant’s eligibility for sentencing relief, instead of the actual 

offense level determined by the court at sentencing. Id. at *3. That is not at issue 

here, as both the PSIR, [708 ¶ 27], and the Court’s Statement of Reasons, [729] at 1, 

indicate that the correct total offense level was 29. 

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Mr. Rowsey’s motion for a reduced 

sentence and finds him ineligible for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2).

[826]. 

Dated: September 3, 2024

E N T E R:

MARY M. ROWLAND

United States District Judge

Case: 1:20-cr-00340 Document #: 857 Filed: 09/03/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:4802