Disjunctive Interpretation of USSG §4C1.1(a)(10): Independent Disqualifiers for Sentence Reduction

Introduction

United States v. Jones, 24-30236 (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2025), presents the Fifth Circuit’s first published interpretation of USSG §4C1.1(a)(10) after Amendments 821 & 825 rendered the “zero-point offender” adjustment retroactive. Roy Lee Jones, Jr., a mid‐level methamphetamine trafficker in a multi-state conspiracy, moved under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) for a two-level reduction when the Sentencing Commission added §4C1.1 to the Guidelines. The district court denied relief, interpreting subsection (a)(10) as requiring both a §3B1.1 role adjustment and a finding of a “continuing criminal enterprise” (CCE) to disqualify a defendant. Jones appealed only the CCE finding; the Government defended the district court’s conjunctive reading. The Fifth Circuit affirmed—holding that §4C1.1(a)(10) is disjunctive (either §3B1.1 or CCE suffices to bar relief) and that Jones in any event was ineligible because he received a §3B1.1 aggravating-role enhancement.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Jones was convicted at a five-day jury trial of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§841(a)(1) & 846. At initial sentencing he received a base offense level of 37 (over 21 metric tons of converted drug weight) plus three points for a §3B1.1(b) managerial-role enhancement, yielding a Guidelines range of 210–262 months. He was sentenced to 210 months.

2. After the Sentencing Commission added §4C1.1 (Amendment 821) and made it retroactive (Amendment 825), Jones moved under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) for a two-level reduction. The probation office recommended relief; both sides submitted supportive briefs. The district court denied relief, reasoning that subsection (a)(10) required both an aggravating-role finding under §3B1.1 and a judicial finding of CCE to disqualify a defendant.

3. On appeal the Government argued that §4C1.1(a)(10) is disjunctive—either condition independently disqualifies. Jones conceded that interpretation but contested the district court’s CCE finding. The Fifth Circuit held de novo that (a)(10) is indeed disjunctive, then reviewed the §3582(c)(2) denial for abuse of discretion and factual findings for clear error. It found no reversible error in the CCE finding, but noted relief was barred by his §3B1.1 enhancement in any event.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Morales, 122 F.4th 590 (5th Cir. 2024) – Held that under §4C1.1(a)(10) receiving a §3B1.1 adjustment or engaging in a CCE each independently disqualifies a defendant from the two-level reduction.
18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) & Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) – Confirmed that resentencing proceedings under §3582(c)(2) are discretionary, not a “new” sentence, and do not trigger Sixth Amendment jury-finding requirements.
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) – Distinguished, because §3582(c)(2) proceedings do not increase the statutory maximum or prescribed range by judicial fact-finding.
Reading Law (Scalia & Garner) – Applied the conjunctive/disjunctive canon to interpret “and” in §4C1.1(a)(10).

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in three steps:

Textual Interpretation of §4C1.1(a)(10): The Guidelines provision reads, in relevant part:
“If the defendant […] (10) did not receive an adjustment under §3B1.1 and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise […] decrease the offense level by 2 levels.”
By the canon of consistent usage and the disjunctive canon, the Court held that the “and” connects two separate disqualifying conditions. Each condition alone (role enhancement or CCE) suffices to bar relief. Any other reading would render §4C1.1(a)(10) redundant with other subsections and conflict with the Sentencing Commission’s design.
Procedural Scope under §3582(c)(2): Under Dillon and subsequent cases, proceedings to apply a retroactive Guidelines amendment do not constitute a full resentencing requiring jury fact-finding. The district court must substitute the amended Guidelines, determine eligibility (the “floor”), and then consider §3553(a) factors. Judicial fact-finding to apply §4C1.1(a)(10) did not violate Apprendi–Booker or reopen the original sentencing.
Abuse-of-Discretion & Clear-Error Review: The Fifth Circuit reviews denials of §3582(c)(2) relief for abuse of discretion and fact findings for clear error. Even if the district court had erroneously found CCE, the error was harmless because Jones received a §3B1.1 enhancement, which alone disqualified him. Moreover, the record—including 11,000+ recorded calls, witness testimony, a ten-month investigation, and a 21-ton converted drug weight calculation—amply supported an independent finding that Jones engaged in a CCE under 21 U.S.C. §848.

Impact

United States v. Jones cements two important principles in federal sentencing:

It clarifies that USSG §4C1.1(a)(10) is disjunctive: a §3B1.1 aggravating-role enhancement or a CCE finding each independently disqualify a defendant from the two-level “zero-point offender” reduction.
It reaffirms that district courts may make necessary fact findings—by a preponderance of the evidence—when implementing retroactive Guidelines amendments under §3582(c)(2), without running afoul of the Sixth Amendment or Apprendi.

Future practitioners will cite Jones when arguing eligibility under §4C1.1, and courts will apply its disjunctive rule and procedural framework in every §3582(c)(2) reduction motion.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 4C1.1 “Zero-Point Offender” Adjustment: A two-level reduction for low-risk defendants who have no criminal history points and meet ten specific criteria.
Section 3B1.1 Role Adjustment: A Guidelines enhancement adding 2–4 levels when a defendant plays an aggravating role (manager, supervisor, organizer) in a multi-participant offense.
Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE): Under 21 U.S.C. §848, a felony drug offense committed in concert with five or more persons, where the defendant occupies an organizer/supervisor role and derives substantial income or resources.
18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) Proceedings: A narrow “second-step” resentencing for defendants whose Guidelines range is lowered by a retroactive amendment; the judge substitutes the amended range and then re-considers §3553(a) factors.
Disjunctive Canon: When a statute uses “and” between two conditions that each bear independent effect elsewhere, courts often interpret it as requiring only one condition to trigger the stated result.

Conclusion

United States v. Jones delivers a clear precedent on how to read USSG §4C1.1(a)(10): the two disqualifying conditions—§3B1.1 enhancement or CCE—operate independently. The decision also underscores a district court’s authority to make necessary factual findings by a preponderance of the evidence during §3582(c)(2) proceedings. As a result, low-risk drug offenders seeking a two-level reduction under Amendment 821 must ensure they neither received an aggravating-role enhancement nor engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise. Jones thus shapes the landscape of federal post-sentencing relief and guides both advocates and sentencers in applying retroactive Guidelines amendments.