Background
In 2021, CJ Carruthers and an accomplice arranged to purchase marijuana in a residential area. They entered the seller’s vehicle with a firearm, stole his marijuana, and exited. Carruthers and the seller then exchanged shots. A bullet from the seller’s firearm entered a nearby home and struck a six-year-old boy in the head while he was lying in bed, causing a skull fracture and traumatic brain injury that left him permanently impaired.
Carruthers pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1951(a). Because he committed the offenses while under a criminal justice sentence, he received two additional criminal-history “status points” under the then-applicable Sentencing Guidelines. His advisory guidelines range was 97 to 121 months’ imprisonment, and the district court imposed a 120-month sentence.
After sentencing, Amendment 821 took effect and limited the impact of committing an offense while under a criminal justice sentence. Under the amended provision, a defendant with six or fewer criminal-history points receives no status points, while a defendant with seven or more receives one. Carruthers’s amended range would have been 87 to 108 months. In 2024, he moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), relying on Part A of Amendment 821. Chief Judge Peter D. Welte of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota denied the motion by order dated May 12, 2025.
The Court’s Holding
Writing for the panel, Judge Loken applied the two-step framework from Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010), as recently explained in United States v. Spotted Elk, 182 F.4th 1064, 1066 (8th Cir. 2026). Carruthers was eligible for a reduction because Amendment 821 lowered his guidelines range. At the second step, however, the district court applied the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the policy statement in USSG § 1B1.10 and determined that a reduction was not warranted. It emphasized the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need to deter similar crimes, and the physical and psychological trauma suffered by the child.
Reviewing the denial for abuse of discretion, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Carruthers argued that the district court gave excessive weight to the offense because it had considered that factor at the original sentencing, effectively imposed an upward variance, and gave insufficient weight to his history, characteristics, and rehabilitation, including prison programming and obtaining his GED. The panel explained that district courts have substantial latitude in weighing the § 3553(a) factors and that disagreement with that weighing does not establish an abuse of discretion. The court could give great weight to the offense and the victim’s trauma even after considering those matters at the original sentencing.
The panel also rejected the upward-variance argument, citing United States v. Black, 992 F.3d 703, 705 (8th Cir. 2021): denying a discretionary reduction to an eligible defendant does not amount to an upward variance. Finally, although the written order did not separately address post-sentencing rehabilitation, the district court stated that it had carefully reviewed the § 3553(a) factors, which include the defendant’s history and characteristics. Because Carruthers thoroughly presented and argued the issue at the sentencing hearing, further discussion in the order was unnecessary absent a subsequent request for additional explanation. Rehabilitation may support a reduction, but the district court was not required to grant one on that basis.
Key Takeaways
- Eligibility under Amendment 821 does not entitle a defendant to a sentence reduction; the district court must still assess the § 3553(a) factors and USSG § 1B1.10.
- A district court may again give substantial weight to the offense’s nature and the victim’s trauma when deciding a § 3582(c)(2) motion, even if those considerations informed the original sentence.
- Denying a discretionary reduction under a lowered guidelines range is not an upward variance.
- Post-sentencing rehabilitation may warrant a reduction, but need not receive additional written discussion where the issue was fully argued and the order states that the § 3553(a) factors were reviewed.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the breadth of district-court discretion at Dillon’s second step and the limited value of appellate challenges directed solely at factor weighing. For defendants eligible under Amendment 821, a lower amended range establishes eligibility, not a presumption favoring release or a shorter sentence.
The opinion also offers practical guidance on rehabilitation arguments: counsel should fully present them at the hearing and, if necessary, seek further explanation of the court’s reasoning. The affirmance rested on this record, including the district court’s stated review of the statutory factors and Carruthers’s thorough presentation, rather than on a categorical rule that rehabilitation may be ignored.