Either an Aggravating Role or a Continuing Criminal Enterprise Disqualifies a “Zero‑Point Offender” Reduction: Third Circuit Affirms Disjunctive Reading of U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(10)

Introduction

This commentary analyzes the Third Circuit’s non-precedential decision in United States v. Lall (No. 24-1960, Dec. 2, 2024), summarily affirming the denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 821 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The case centers on the scope of the “Zero-Point Offender” reduction in U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 and, specifically, how to read the disqualifying criterion that a defendant “did not receive an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise.” The defendant argued a conjunctive reading—i.e., he must have both an aggravating role and a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) to be disqualified—while the Government and the courts read the provision as disqualifying if either condition applies.

The panel held that either circumstance is disqualifying. It grounded that conclusion in the Guidelines’ structure, the canon against surplusage, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s November 1, 2024 “clarifying” amendment that split the single criterion into two independent disqualifiers. The decision thus provides clear guidance to district courts in the Third Circuit that a § 3B1.1 aggravating role—by itself—renders a defendant ineligible for the “Zero-Point Offender” reduction.

Summary of the Opinion

- Procedural posture: After his 2018 convictions for money laundering and drug conspiracies, Khamraj Lall received a four-level leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Following Amendment 821 (the “Zero-Point Offender” reduction), he sought a retroactive two-level reduction under § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied relief and then denied reconsideration, reasoning that the § 3B1.1 leadership enhancement disqualified him from § 4C1.1. The Government moved for summary affirmance on appeal.

- Holding: The Third Circuit summarily affirmed. It agreed that § 4C1.1(a)(10) is disqualifying if the defendant either received a § 3B1.1 aggravating role enhancement or engaged in a CCE. Reading the text conjunctively would render the criterion meaningless because Guidelines rules preclude simultaneously applying a § 3B1.1 role enhancement to a CCE offense. The court also relied on the Sentencing Commission’s 2024 amendment, which split the former single criterion into two separate, independent disqualifiers, expressly to “clarify” the Commission’s intention.

- Standards applied: The court exercised plenary (de novo) review over the legal question of eligibility for a reduction based on a retroactive Guidelines amendment and reviewed the denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion. It concluded the appeal presented no substantial question and granted summary affirmance under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

Factual and Procedural Background

- Convictions and sentence: In 2018, Lall was convicted of conspiracy to launder money, money laundering, and conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)-(ii), and 21 U.S.C. § 846. He received a four-level leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for acting as a leader of a criminal activity involving five or more participants or otherwise extensive. He was sentenced to 156 months’ imprisonment; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.

- Amendment 821 motion: In October 2023, after the Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 821 (effective November 1, 2023), which created § 4C1.1 and a two-level reduction for eligible “Zero-Point Offenders” (defendants with no criminal history points and who satisfy enumerated criteria), Lall moved for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied relief and later denied reconsideration, explaining that his § 3B1.1 enhancement made him ineligible for § 4C1.1.

- Appeal: Lall argued the text of § 4C1.1(a)(10) should be read conjunctively—i.e., a defendant is disqualified only if he both received a § 3B1.1 adjustment and engaged in a CCE. The Third Circuit rejected that reading and affirmed.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

United States v. Hanlin, 48 F.3d 121, 124 (3d Cir. 1995): Establishes plenary/de novo review for legal determinations in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings involving retroactive Guidelines amendments. The court relied on this to frame its standard of review for Lall’s eligibility.
United States v. Kalb, 891 F.3d 455, 459 (3d Cir. 2018): Confirms abuse-of-discretion review for the denial of motions for reconsideration in criminal cases; applied to the reconsideration ruling here.
Pulsifer v. United States, 601 U.S. 124 (2024): The Supreme Court’s textual analysis of conjunctive phrasing and the canon against surplusage in the context of the safety-valve statute. The panel invoked Pulsifer’s surplusage reasoning to conclude that a conjunctive reading of § 4C1.1(a)(10) would nullify the criterion, because the Guidelines structurally preclude a defendant from being both subject to § 3B1.1 and convicted of a CCE.
United States v. Rutherford, No. 23-1904, 2024 WL 4645583 (3d Cir. Nov. 1, 2024): Cited to show that courts may consider the effect of an amended Guidelines policy statement on a § 3582 motion even for the first time on appeal; used here to contextualize reliance on the 2024 clarifying amendment to § 4C1.1.
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5, comment. (n.1): Provides that for the continuing criminal enterprise offense, no Chapter Three, Part B (role) enhancements apply. This structural rule is key: if § 4C1.1(a)(10) were conjunctive, it would be impossible to satisfy both prongs, rendering the criterion meaningless. The note thus anchors the anti-surplusage analysis.
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1: The aggravating role enhancement for organizers/leaders/supervisors; receipt of this enhancement is an independent disqualifier for the Zero-Point reduction under the court’s reading.
U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 (2023 and 2024 versions): The Zero-Point Offender guideline created by Amendment 821, listing eligibility criteria. The 2024 amendment split the earlier combined criterion into two separate items—(10) no § 3B1.1 enhancement; and (11) not engaged in a CCE—and the Historical Notes state the change was to clarify the Commission’s intent that either condition is disqualifying.
21 U.S.C. § 848 (CCE statute): The substantive definition of a continuing criminal enterprise referenced in the guideline criterion.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2): Authorizes sentence reductions when the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowers a sentencing range and the reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements.

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s analysis proceeds along three interlocking paths:

Text and structure of the Guidelines: The disputed language in former § 4C1.1(a)(10) stated that to qualify as a Zero-Point Offender, the defendant must have “not receive[d] an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise.” If read conjunctively, this would mean a defendant is disqualified only when both disqualifications apply simultaneously. But under § 2D1.5’s commentary, a CCE conviction cannot carry a § 3B1.1 role adjustment. As a result, no defendant could ever fail this criterion if the “and” were truly conjunctive. Such a reading would “render an entire subparagraph meaningless,” which the canon against surplusage disfavors. The court therefore reads the provision to operate in the disjunctive: either the § 3B1.1 enhancement or a CCE finding alone defeats eligibility.
Canon against surplusage, buttressed by Pulsifer: Pulsifer underscores that text must be read to give effect to each provision in context. Here, the contextual rule in § 2D1.5 makes conjunctive application impossible, so reading “and” to require both would erase the criterion’s effect. The court thus applies the anti-surplusage canon with “special force,” as Pulsifer instructs when a construction would nullify a whole provision.
Clarifying amendment: On November 1, 2024, the Sentencing Commission amended § 4C1.1 to split the single criterion into two separate ones—(10) no § 3B1.1 adjustment; and (11) not engaged in a CCE—and stated in the Historical Notes that the amendment was to “clarify” the Commission’s intention that either condition independently disqualifies a defendant. While the case arises from the 2023 text, the court treats the 2024 amendment as confirming the proper reading and, under Rutherford, appropriately considers its interpretive effect in the § 3582 posture.

With that reasoning, the panel concluded Lall was ineligible for the two-level reduction because he had received a § 3B1.1(a) leadership enhancement at his original sentencing. That single fact sufficed to deny § 4C1.1 relief. The court therefore affirmed the denial of the § 3582 motion and the denial of reconsideration, finding no substantial question to preclude summary affirmance.

Impact and Implications

Immediate practical effect: Defendants within the Third Circuit who received any § 3B1.1 aggravating role enhancement are categorically ineligible for the two-level “Zero-Point Offender” reduction under § 4C1.1, even if they have no criminal history points and otherwise meet the remaining criteria.
Uniform administration consistent with Commission intent: The decision harmonizes district court practice with the Commission’s 2024 clarifying amendment, promoting consistent application of Amendment 821. Arguments that the 2023 phrasing’s “and” demands both disqualifying conditions will have little traction after this decision and the clarifying amendment.
Limited pathway for leadership defendants: Many drug and financial-crimes prosecutions in which defendants acted as organizers or leaders will be excluded from Zero-Point relief. Counsel should assess at the outset whether any § 3B1.1 enhancement exists; if so, a § 4C1.1-based § 3582(c)(2) motion is foreclosed.
Use of clarifying amendments in § 3582 litigation: The court’s reliance on the 2024 amendment as clarification, supported by Rutherford, signals that later Commission “clarifications” can inform the interpretation of earlier text when evaluating § 3582 motions—even if the clarifying change postdates the district court’s ruling.
Non-precedential but persuasive: While the opinion is not binding precedent under the Third Circuit’s Internal Operating Procedures, it may nonetheless guide district courts and litigants, especially given its straightforward application of structure, surplusage, and Commission commentary.

Complex Concepts Simplified

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2): Allows a judge to reduce a prison sentence when the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowers the guideline range that was used at the original sentencing. Not every amendment is retroactive; the Commission designates which are.
Amendment 821 and § 4C1.1 (“Zero-Point Offender”): A 2023 amendment creating a two-level decrease for defendants with zero criminal history points who meet a list of criteria that screen out aggravating conduct. It was made retroactive for eligible defendants.
§ 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role): Adds 2–4 levels if the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of criminal activity. Here, Lall received a four-level enhancement as a “leader” under § 3B1.1(a).
Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE), 21 U.S.C. § 848: A serious drug offense requiring proof that the defendant committed a series of violations in concert with five or more persons, occupied a leadership role, and obtained substantial income. The Guidelines prohibit layering separate role enhancements on top of a CCE offense level.
Anti-surplusage canon: A rule of interpretation counseling courts to avoid readings that render text superfluous or meaningless. The court applied it to avoid a reading of § 4C1.1(a)(10) that would nullify the provision.
Clarifying vs. substantive amendments: A “clarifying” amendment explains the Commission’s original intent and often applies to pending cases to interpret earlier language; a “substantive” change alters legal consequences. The Commission characterized the 2024 change to § 4C1.1 as clarifying, reinforcing that either disqualifier (aggravating role or CCE) independently blocks relief.
Standards of review: “Plenary” (de novo) review for legal eligibility under retroactive guideline amendments; “abuse of discretion” for the denial of reconsideration. Summary affirmance is appropriate where the appeal raises no substantial question.

Notable Editorial Point

The opinion refers to “U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a) (1993),” which appears to be a typographical error. The “Zero-Point Offender” guideline was added by Amendment 821, effective November 1, 2023. The court’s analysis and context make clear it is discussing the 2023 text as it existed when the district court ruled, not a 1993 guideline.

Conclusion

United States v. Lall squarely rejects the contention that the 2023 version of § 4C1.1(a)(10) disqualifies only those defendants who both received an aggravating role enhancement and engaged in a CCE. Anchored in the Guidelines’ structure, the anti-surplusage canon, and the Sentencing Commission’s 2024 clarifying amendment, the Third Circuit confirms that either circumstance independently defeats eligibility for the Zero-Point Offender reduction. As a result, defendants with any § 3B1.1 aggravating role enhancement cannot obtain a two-level reduction under § 4C1.1, even if they otherwise have zero criminal history points and satisfy the remaining criteria. Although non-precedential, the decision offers clear, practical guidance to courts and practitioners navigating Amendment 821’s retroactive application in the Third Circuit.