Two new reports measure Amendment 821 decisions through June 30
On September 9, 2026, the United States Sentencing Commission published separate retroactivity reports for Parts A and B of Amendment 821. Part A addresses criminal-history status points. Part B, Subpart 1 created a two-level decrease for qualifying zero-point offenders. The reports cover motions decided through June 30, 2026, for which documentation had been received and analyzed by August 25, 2026.
For Part A, the Commission reports 17,626 decided motions: 5,950 grants and 11,676 denials. For Part B, it reports 13,762 decided motions: 4,114 grants and 9,648 denials. These are part-specific motion outcomes, not a count of unique people. Because one case may implicate both provisions, the two reports should not be added together and described as the number of distinct individuals who received or sought relief.
The reports are preliminary measurements, not new eligibility rules
The reports describe documentation processed by a defined cutoff date. Later rulings, delayed records, reconsideration decisions, appeals, and cases that could not be coded may change later totals. The tables also do not create a presumption that a new motion will succeed or fail.
The legal path remains 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) and USSG §1B1.10. A court first determines whether a listed retroactive amendment lowers the applicable guideline range and what reduction the policy statement permits. It then decides whether a reduction is warranted after considering the applicable §3553(a) factors, public safety, post-sentencing conduct, and the individual record.
Part A changes status points—not every criminal-history calculation
Before Amendment 821, former §4A1.1(d) generally added two criminal-history points when the defendant committed the federal offense while under a criminal-justice sentence. Part A replaced that rule. It eliminates status points for a person with six or fewer criminal-history points before status points are added, and it assigns one status point—not two—to a person with seven or more such points.
That change can matter only if the recalculation lowers the guideline range that controlled the sentence. A person may receive fewer status points yet remain in the same criminal-history category, or another guideline, statutory minimum, or designation may continue to control the range. The original presentence report, statement of reasons, judgment, plea agreement, and sentencing transcript are therefore essential.
Part B is a separate zero-point-offender test with multiple disqualifiers
Part B, Subpart 1 added §4C1.1. It provides a two-level decrease only when the person received zero criminal-history points and satisfies every listed criterion. Among other things, the offense cannot involve specified violence, a credible threat of violence, death or serious bodily injury, a sex offense, substantial financial hardship, or possession or use of a firearm or dangerous weapon in connection with the offense.
The provision also excludes several other circumstances, including certain terrorism, hate-crime, human-rights, civil-rights, and aggravating-role adjustments. A person who lacks prior convictions is not automatically eligible. The complete offense conduct and guideline findings must be compared to each criterion in §4C1.1.
Part A denials most often reflected threshold or range problems
The Part A report records more than one reason in some denied cases. Among all recorded Part A denial reasons, 6,172 stated that the defendant was not eligible under §1B1.10, 3,126 stated that the defendant did not receive status points or otherwise was not eligible under the amendment, and 3,059 stated that the criminal-history category did not change.
The report also identifies denials where another rule controlled: 844 involved a career-offender or Armed Career Criminal designation, 506 involved a statutory mandatory minimum, 482 involved an unchanged guideline range, and 750 involved a sentence already below the amended range without the qualifying substantial-assistance basis described by §1B1.10. These categories show why merely locating status points in an old presentence report does not complete the analysis.
Part B denials frequently turned on one failed §4C1.1 criterion
For Part B, the Commission records 6,552 denial reasons stating that a defendant did not meet one or more §4C1.1 criteria. The more specific reasons include 2,844 cases involving more than zero criminal-history points, 1,646 involving a firearm or dangerous weapon connected to the offense, and 1,101 involving an aggravating role or continuing-criminal-enterprise circumstance.
The report also identifies offense violence, death or serious bodily injury, sex offenses, and substantial financial hardship among recurring barriers. Separately, 2,301 denial reasons involved ineligibility under §1B1.10, while statutory minimums, sentences already below the new range, and cases that already received the amendment also appeared. A reliable review should use the exact judgment and guideline findings, not a shorthand label such as ‘first offender.’
Eligibility did not guarantee a reduction
Both reports include merit-based denials after or apart from the threshold calculations. The Commission records §3553(a) as a reason in 1,456 Part A denials and 708 Part B denials. Both reports also identify post-sentencing conduct among the reasons courts denied relief. Because multiple reasons can appear in one case, those figures are not separate case counts.
A complete motion should therefore address the current record: disciplinary history, education and programming, work, treatment, restitution, family and community support, supervision, housing, employment, medical needs, victim-related considerations, public safety, time served, and the purposes of the original sentence. The amended calculation opens the inquiry; it does not decide the discretionary result.
Granted cases produced meaningful but varied reductions
Among Part A grants with available sentence information, the report shows an average sentence moving from approximately 117 months to 105 months—a reduction of about 12 months. For Part B grants, the average moved from approximately 93 months to 77 months, a reduction of about 16 months using the rounded figures.
A national average does not measure the likely reduction in a particular case. Some grants resulted in a sentence of time served, some involved supervised-release adjustments, and some sentences were already close to completion. The permitted result depends on the amended range, §1B1.10's limits, any qualifying substantial-assistance departure, time already served, and the sentencing court's exercise of discretion.
District percentages are descriptive—not predictions
The Commission's tables show substantial variation among circuits and districts. Those percentages combine different offense types, sentence structures, guideline findings, records, government positions, judges, and motion quality. Small samples can also produce dramatic percentages.
A district's historical grant rate is not an eligibility rule and cannot substitute for controlling law or a case-specific record. The useful comparison is between the individual's original guideline calculation and the amended calculation, followed by an honest analysis of §1B1.10, §3553(a), public safety, and post-sentencing conduct.
A careful review separates Part A, Part B, and the discretionary record
The new data points to a disciplined review process. Begin with the operative sentencing documents and calculate Part A and Part B separately. Identify every rule that may continue to control the sentence. Confirm that the amendment was not already applied, test §1B1.10's limits, and then build the discretionary record with current and verifiable evidence.
The motion should state which amendment provision applies, reproduce the original and amended calculations, explain every eligibility criterion, identify the authorized reduction, and address foreseeable objections. A generic request based only on the national totals leaves unanswered the questions that produced most denials.
- Obtain the presentence report, judgment, statement of reasons, plea agreement, sentencing transcript, and prior reduction orders.
- Recalculate status points and criminal-history category under Part A without assuming the guideline range changes.
- Test every §4C1.1 criterion under Part B using the offense facts and guideline findings.
- Check statutory minimums, career-offender or Armed Career Criminal status, binding plea terms, departures, variances, and prior amendment credit.
- Document post-sentencing conduct, release planning, supervision, public safety, and each relevant §3553(a) factor.
- Verify the controlling circuit and district law as of the filing date.
Limits and caution
The September 9 reports confirm that Amendment 821 has produced thousands of sentence reductions, but they also record substantially more denials than grants under both provisions. The most common problems were not statistical; they involved eligibility, unchanged ranges, disqualifying guideline facts, other controlling rules, and discretionary sentencing considerations.
This article provides general educational information, not legal advice, a prediction, a deadline calculation, or a conclusion that any person qualifies for relief. Amendment 821 review requires the complete sentencing record, current law, an accurate amended guideline calculation, prior motion and appeal history, and individualized analysis.