Full Retroactive Effect of Amendment 821: Fourth Circuit Requires Recalculation of Interacting Guideline Components in § 3582(c)(2) Proceedings

Introduction

In United States v. Melissa Barrett (4th Cir. Mar. 27, 2025), the Fourth Circuit issued a published decision clarifying how courts must apply retroactive Sentencing Guidelines amendments under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court held that when a retroactive amendment directly affects more than one component of the Guidelines calculation, the district court must give the amendment full effect in determining the defendant’s amended guideline range—including any effects that flow through to other guideline provisions.

The opinion addresses Amendment 821, Part A, which reduces or eliminates “status points” under § 4A1.1 for defendants who committed their instant offenses while under a criminal justice sentence. The key question was whether, in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, the court may account not only for the reduced criminal history score (and resulting criminal history category), but also for the amendment’s knock-on effect on the defendant’s eligibility for a two-level reduction to the offense level under § 2D1.1(b)(17). The Fourth Circuit answered yes, vacating the district court’s contrary decision and remanding.

Parties: The United States prosecuted Melissa Darlene Barrett for methamphetamine distribution and conspiracy. While serving a 168-month sentence, Barrett sought a sentence reduction based on Amendment 821. The government agreed she was eligible for some reduction but disagreed about scope. The district court partly granted relief, and Barrett appealed.

Summary of the Opinion

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s ruling and remanded for further proceedings.
Holding: In recalculating an “amended guideline range” under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1), district courts must account for the full, direct effect of a retroactive amendment—even where the amendment’s change to criminal history also triggers adjustments to offense level under another guideline (here, § 2D1.1(b)(17)).
The phrase “leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected” in § 1B1.10(b)(1) does not bar courts from recognizing these direct interactions; it prevents relitigation of issues not affected by the retroactive amendment.
Fact-finding: In § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, courts may make supplemental factual findings supported by the existing record and consistent with earlier findings to determine eligibility for adjustments (reaffirming United States v. Peters).
Outcome: The district court must determine whether Barrett meets the remaining § 2D1.1(b)(17) criteria and, if so, recalculate the amended range and exercise its discretion anew.

Background

Barrett pleaded guilty to distribution and conspiracy involving methamphetamine. Using the 2016 Guidelines, the district court calculated:

Criminal history points: 3 (1 for a prior conviction + 2 status points under § 4A1.1(d) (2016)) → Criminal History Category II.
Total offense level: 33 (including a 3-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; no enhancements).
Guideline range: 151–188 months; sentence imposed: 168 months.

After Amendment 821 (effective November 2023) was made retroactive, the probation office concluded Barrett no longer received status points, reducing her criminal history to 1 point (Category I). It recommended a revised range of 135–168 months (offense level unchanged at 33), and a proportionate reduction to 150 months. The government agreed.

Barrett argued that, with only one criminal history point, she also became newly eligible for a two-level offense reduction under § 2D1.1(b)(17), which incorporates the criteria of § 5C1.2(a)(1)–(5). If she met all criteria, her offense level would fall to 31, yielding a range of 108–135 months. She requested 120 months. The district court rejected this, reasoning that § 1B1.10(b)(1) requires leaving “other guideline application decisions” unaffected and that § 2D1.1(b)(17) had not itself been amended. It reduced her sentence only to 150 months.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and How They Shape the Decision

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010): Establishes that § 3582(c)(2) authorizes sentence reductions consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements and that § 1B1.10 is mandatory. Also emphasizes the limited nature of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings—but recognizes that judges may make findings in those proceedings.
United States v. Spruhan, 989 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2021): Standard of review—de novo—for the scope of authority under § 3582(c)(2).
United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2010): Interprets “leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected” to bar relitigation of issues not impacted by the retroactive amendment.
United States v. Peters, 843 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2016): Allows supplemental findings of fact in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings if supported by the record and consistent with earlier findings.
United States v. Koglin, 822 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 2016): Rejects a compartmentalized approach; a court should not ignore effects of a retroactive amendment on other guideline provisions that together produce the guideline range. This is the core “interaction” principle the Fourth Circuit adopts.
United States v. Zapatero, 961 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2020) and United States v. Helm, 891 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2018): Support reading § 1B1.10(b)(1) in harmony with § 1B1.1(a)’s stepwise method—calculating the full amended range, not just a single component.
United States v. Tellis, 748 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2014) and United States v. Counts, 500 F. App’x 220 (4th Cir. 2012): Illustrate accepted practice that a retroactive change to one provision (drug quantity) can shift which of two interacting provisions governs (e.g., career offender guideline vs. drug table), reinforcing that courts may account for inter-provision interactions.
United States v. Hall, 600 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2010): Confirms that new findings consistent with the record are permissible in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.
United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328 (11th Cir. 2013) and United States v. Rios, 765 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2014): Reflect a circuit split over whether courts may consider new evidence or must confine themselves to the original record; the Fourth Circuit flags but does not resolve this issue here.

Legal Reasoning

What must be recalculated:
- Section 1B1.10(b)(1) directs courts to “determine the amended guideline range that would have been applicable” if the retroactive amendment had been in place at the time of sentencing.
- A “guideline range” is the bottom-line range resulting from the combination of criminal history category and offense level, as explained by § 1B1.1(a)’s seven-step process. It is not simply a recalculated criminal history category in isolation.
Meaning of “leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected”:
- This clause does not preclude courts from recognizing the amendment’s direct, mechanical implications on other guideline provisions that help generate the final range.
- It forecloses relitigation of matters not affected by the retroactive amendment (e.g., unrelated enhancements, nonretroactive changes, or factual disputes resolved at the original sentencing).
Why § 2D1.1(b)(17) is within scope here:
- Amendment 821 (Part A) reduces the criminal history points attributable to status, which directly changes Barrett’s total criminal history points from three to one.
- That change directly satisfies § 2D1.1(b)(17)’s first criterion—that the defendant have no more than one criminal history point—potentially triggering a two-level offense reduction if the other criteria are met.
- Thus, the amendment directly affects both the criminal history category and the offense level; both effects must be incorporated into the “amended guideline range.”
Fact-finding in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings:
- While § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a plenary resentencing, courts may make supplemental findings necessary to apply the retroactive amendment, so long as they are supported by the existing record and consistent with earlier findings (Peters).
- Applying § 2D1.1(b)(17) may require findings on criteria (2)–(5) (e.g., no violence, no leadership role, etc.). The district court may make those findings on the existing record on remand; here, Barrett disclaimed the need for an evidentiary hearing.

Impact

The decision has significant, immediate consequences for defendants seeking relief under Amendment 821 and, more broadly, for the administration of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings:

Broader potential reductions under Amendment 821: Defendants whose status points are reduced to zero (or one) may newly qualify for the two-level reduction in § 2D1.1(b)(17), resulting in materially lower amended ranges than would result from recalculating criminal history alone.
Guidance for district courts: Courts must calculate the complete amended guideline range, reflecting all direct interactions, not just the amended provision in isolation. Failure to consider these interactions is reversible error.
Fact-finding parameters reaffirmed: Courts may make supplemental, record-supported findings to resolve eligibility for adjustments like § 2D1.1(b)(17). The Fourth Circuit leaves open whether new evidence may be considered (acknowledging the circuit split).
Consistency with cross-circuit authority: By embracing Koglin’s “interaction” approach, the Fourth Circuit aligns with a nationwide understanding that retroactive amendments can shift multiple components that together produce the range.
Practical stakes: Many defendants with prior status points could see larger reductions than probation addenda initially suggest, depending on the record’s support for § 2D1.1(b)(17) criteria.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Status points: Extra criminal history points formerly added when a defendant committed the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence (e.g., probation). Amendment 821 limits or eliminates these points, lowering many defendants’ criminal history scores.
Amended guideline range: The new range that would have applied had the retroactive amendment been in effect at the original sentencing. It reflects both the criminal history category and the offense level—and all direct interactions between the amended provision and other guidelines that together produce the range.
§ 3582(c)(2) proceeding: A limited mechanism to reduce sentences based on retroactive amendments. It is not a full resentencing, but the court can make supplemental findings from the existing record to apply the amendment correctly.
§ 2D1.1(b)(17) two-level reduction: An offense-level reduction for certain drug offenders who meet criteria paralleling the “safety valve” criteria in § 5C1.2(a) (which track 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)). It does not itself grant relief from a statutory minimum; rather, it reduces the offense level within the Guidelines.
“Leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected”: This instruction prevents reopening unrelated determinations made at the original sentencing (e.g., unamended enhancements or factual disputes already resolved). It does not forbid acknowledging how a retroactive change directly affects other parts of the calculation.

What the District Court Must Do on Remand

Recognize that Barrett’s criminal history points are now one and that she is potentially eligible for § 2D1.1(b)(17).
Determine, based on the existing record and consistent with the original findings, whether she satisfies the remaining § 2D1.1(b)(17)/§ 5C1.2(a) criteria (no violence/weapon, no death/serious injury, no leadership role/CCE participation, and full truthful disclosure to the government).
If those criteria are met, reduce the offense level by two and recalculate the amended guideline range using Criminal History Category I.
Exercise discretion under § 3582(c)(2), considering the § 3553(a) factors and adhering to § 1B1.10’s limitations, to determine the extent of any reduction.

Key Takeaways

When applying a retroactive amendment under § 3582(c)(2), courts must compute the full amended guideline range, capturing all direct interactions the amendment causes across the Guidelines.
Amendment 821’s reduction of status points can directly trigger eligibility for § 2D1.1(b)(17)’s two-level offense reduction—potentially yielding a substantially lower amended range.
“Other guideline application decisions” remain unaffected only if they are not impacted by the retroactive amendment.
Courts may make supplemental factual findings based on the existing record to implement the amendment (consistent with United States v. Peters), but the Fourth Circuit leaves unresolved whether new evidence may be considered.

Conclusion

United States v. Melissa Barrett establishes an important and practical rule in the Fourth Circuit: retroactive Guidelines amendments must be given their full effect across all interacting components that generate the guideline range. By requiring courts to incorporate Amendment 821’s knock-on effects—including potential eligibility for § 2D1.1(b)(17)’s two-level reduction—the decision ensures that § 3582(c)(2) relief reflects the Guidelines as they would have applied originally with the amendment in place.

The opinion also reaffirms that, although § 3582(c)(2) proceedings are limited and not full resentencings, district courts can (and sometimes must) make supplemental findings supported by the record to implement retroactive changes. For practitioners, Barrett underscores the need to analyze whether a retroactive criminal history change opens the door to offense-level reductions and to marshal the existing record to demonstrate eligibility for such relief. For courts, it provides a clear methodological directive: compute the amended guideline range wholly and holistically, not piecemeal.