govinfo:USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00402-4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 
 : CRIMINAL ACTION 
 v. : 
 : NO. 19-402-03 
DEMETRIUS CEASAR : 
 : 
 
MEMORANDUM 
 
SURRICK, J. AUGUST 8, 2024 
 
 Presently before the Court is Defendant Demetrius Ceasar (“Defendant” or “Ceasar”)’s 
pro se Motion for Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Mot., ECF No. 
342.) Ceasar seeks a sentence reduction based on Amendment 821 to the United States 
Sentencing Commission Sentencing Guidelines (“Sentencing Guidelines”). For the following 
reasons, Defendant’s Motion will be denied. 
I. BACKGROUND 
On January 16, 2020, Defendant was charged by a Second Superseding Indictment with 
one count of conspiracy to commit robbery which interferes with interstate commerce, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Count One); one count of robbery which interferes with 
interstate commerce, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2 (Count 
Two); and one count of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a 
crime of violence, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 2 (Count 
Three). (Second Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 126.) Three co-defendants were also 
charged in the Second Superseding Indictment. (Id.) On July 29, 2021, Defendant pled guilty to 
Counts 1-2 of the Indictment. (ECF No. 252.) The plea agreement recommended a sentence of 
87 months, and on November 9, 2021, Defendant was sentenced to 87 months imprisonment and 

2 
 
three years of supervised release. (ECF Nos. 258, 259, 260, 265; Pre-sentence Investigation 
Report (“PSR”), ¶ 90.) 
The crimes for which Defendant pled guilty carry a base offense level of 20. (PSR, ¶ 44.) 
Defendant’s offense level was increased by six points because a firearm was pressed against the 
victim’s head and struck her during the robbery. (Id., ¶ 45.) The offense level was increased by 
an additional four points because the victim sustained serious bodily injury when she was bruised 
and cut and was transported to the hospital and received staples and stitches to her head after the 
robbery. (Id., ¶ 46.) The movement of the victim throughout the house during the crime was 
considered to be an abduction, which required a four-level increase. (Id., ¶ 47.) As the total 
value of stolen items was between $500,000 and $1,500,000 and the robbers damaged the 
victim’s residence, a three-level increase was applied. (Id., ¶ 48.) Defendant was provided with 
a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and a one level reduction for the timely 
nature of the plea. (Id., ¶¶ 54-55.) The total offense level after these adjustments was 34. (Id.) 
Defendant has one criminal history point, resulting from a 2010 conviction for a drug 
offense. (Id., ¶¶ 57-58.) Based on this offense level and criminal history, the Sentencing 
Guideline range was 151-188 months. (Id., ¶ 90.) This Court sentenced Defendant below the 
lower bound of that range to a sentence of 87 months in prison. (Id.) 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
A district court generally may not modify a term of imprisonment after it has been 
imposed, but it may do so when the adopted sentencing range has been lowered by the 
Sentencing Commission after the sentence is final and the Commission makes the Sentencing 
Guideline amendment retroactive. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 
821 (2010). To evaluate whether a defendant is entitled to a sentence reduction due to a 

3 
 
modification of the Sentencing Guidelines, “the Court: (1) determines the defendant’s eligibility 
for a reduced sentence and calculates their amended Guidelines range if they are eligible; and (2) 
considers any applicable [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) factors” and determines whether the reduction is 
warranted under the circumstances of the case. United States v. Banks, No. 19-431-3, 2024 WL 
919835, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2024) (citing Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826-27). In determining 
eligibility for a reduced sentence, courts must follow the instructions provided by Section 1B1.10 
of the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. 
III. DISCUSSION 
Defendant, moving pro se, argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under 18 
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the amended sentencing guideline U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. (Mot. at 1.) The 
Government contends that Defendant is not eligible for a reduction in sentence under this 
Guideline amendment because he received one criminal history point and because a firearm was 
used in the commission of the crime and a victim suffered significant bodily injury. (Opp’n, 
ECF No. 343, at 5-6.) 
We agree with the Government that Defendant is not eligible for a reduction in sentence 
under Amendment 821 because he has one criminal history point and based on the nature of the 
robbery. Furthermore, even if he qualified as a zero-point offender under Amendment 821, 
Defendant would not be entitled to relief because a retroactive application of the amendment 
would not lower his applicable guideline range. 
The Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 821, effective November 1, 2023, which 
changes the way criminal history status points are calculated. Banks, 2024 WL 919835, at *1. 
Part B of Amendment 821, under which Defendant seeks relief, allows courts to decrease a 
defendant’s total offense level by two points if they qualified as a “zero-point offender” when 

4 
 
they were sentenced. U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(1); see also Banks, 2024 WL 919835, at *1. To 
qualify as a zero-point offender, a defendant must not have “receive[d] any criminal history 
points” at the time of their sentencing. U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(1). In addition, they must meet nine 
additional requirements, including that “the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of 
violence in connection with the offense;” “the offense did not result in death or serious bodily 
injury;” and “the defendant did not possess, receive, purchase, transport, transfer, sell, or 
otherwise dispose of a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do 
so) in connection with the offense.”
1 Id. § 4C1.1(a)(3), (4), (7). Amendment 821 applies 
retroactively. Banks, 2024 WL 919835, at *1. 
The Sentencing Commission implemented this amendment after studying recidivism 
rates of “zero-point offenders” as compared to all other groups of offenders. U.S.S.G. § 
4C1.1(a) at Subpart 1. An analysis of the Commission found that “zero-point offenders” were 
less likely to be rearrested than “one point” offenders (26.8% compared to 42.3%), the largest 
variation of any comparison of offenders within the same Criminal History Category. Id. (citing 
U.S Sent’g Comm’n, Recidivism of Federal Offenders Released in 2010 (2021), available at 
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-
publications/2021/20210930_Recidivism.pdf.) Even one criminal history point renders a 
defendant ineligible for a reduction in sentence under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. See United States v. 
Zavala, No. 02-173-11, 2024 WL 3582632, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2024). Because Defendant 
 
1 The additional requirements are: the defendant did not receive an adjustment under § 3A1.4 
(Terrorism); the instant offense of conviction is not a sex offense; the defendant did not personally cause 
substantial financial hardship; the instant offense of conviction is not covered by § 2H1.1 (Offenses 
Involving Individual Rights); the defendant did not receive an adjustment under § 3A1.1 (Hate Crime 
Motivation or Vulnerable Victim) or § 3A1.5 (Serious Human Rights Offense); and 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. U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a). 

5 
 
has one criminal history point, resulting from a 2010 conviction for a drug trafficking offense, he 
is not eligible for a sentence reduction under this Guideline amendment. 
Defendant is also not eligible for a reduction in sentence based on the nature of the crime. 
Defendant pled guilty to a Hobbs Act robbery in which a 17 year-old girl was beaten with a 
pistol and kicked. (PSR, ¶¶ 22-23.) The use or threat of violence during an offense is an 
element of a Hobbs Act robbery. See United States v. Henry, No. 23-cr-125, 2024 WL 2831811, 
at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 4, 2024) (citing United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845, 850 (2022)). 
Defendant’s offense level was increased by six points because a firearm was pressed against the 
victim’s head and struck her during the robbery. (PSR, ¶ 45.) The “zero-point” reduction does 
not apply to crimes involving violence or threats of violence or in which a firearm is used in 
connection with the offense. U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(3), (7). Further, Defendant received a four 
point upward adjustment of his offense level to reflect the “serious bodily injury” sustained by 
the victim. (PSR, ¶ 46.) Crimes which lead to death or serious bodily injury are also excluded. 
U.S.S.G § 4C1.1(a)(4). Accordingly, the nature of the crime to which Defendant pled guilty 
renders him ineligible for a sentence reduction under this Guideline amendment. 
Moreover, even if Defendant was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 
821, the reduction is inapplicable as he received a sentence that is below the revised Sentencing 
Guideline. A sentence may only be reduced if it is “consistent with the applicable policy 
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C § 3582. “If a retroactive 
amendment to the Guidelines ‘does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable 
guideline range,’ a reduction in the defendant’s sentence is inconsistent with the Commission’s 
policy statements and therefore not authorized by Section 3582(c)(2).” Banks, 2024 WL 919835, 
at *1 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B)). 

6 
 
At sentencing, the Court adopted the Sentencing Commission’s recommended range of 
151-188 months but considered mitigating factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and sentenced 
Defendant to a term of 87 months in prison. (Opp’n at 2.) Here, a two-point reduction in the 
offense level would lead to a sentencing range of 121-151 months. See U.S.S.G. Chapter 5, Part 
A. Because under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) a court shall not reduce a sentence “to a term that 
is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range,” and Defendant’s sentence of 87 
months is below the amended guideline range of 121 months, this Court cannot reduce 
Defendant’s sentence even if Amendment 821 applied to him. See United States v. Perez, No. 
20-69, 2024 WL 246026, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2024). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s pro se Motion will be denied. An appropriate 
Order follows. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 R. Barclay Surrick 
 R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J. 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight