United States v. Kritza, 4:17-cr-00938

Defendant Theodore I.J. Kritza, a fiduciary/manager for a professional basketball player, misused his access to the victim's finances, resulting in millions in losses from 2005-2013.
Kritza was charged with multiple counts of bank fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft; he pleaded guilty to one count each of bank and wire fraud pursuant to a plea agreement.
The plea agreement included a broad waiver, explicitly precluding Kritza from seeking sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), but allowing for compassionate release motions.
At sentencing, Kritza's guideline range was 63-78 months (offense level 26, criminal history category I). He was sentenced to 70 months in prison.
In 2023, Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines became retroactive, slightly reducing Kritza’s advisory guideline range to 51-63 months.
Kritza filed for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on this amendment; despite waiver, the court considered the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to seek reduction under § 3582(c)	Waiver in plea agreement bars relief	Eligible because amendment is retroactive	Waiver is enforceable, but court considers on own motion
Eligibility under Amendment 821	Agrees Kritza is eligible if court acts	Argues amendment lowers guideline range, making him eligible	Kritza is eligible for relief under Amendment 821
Discretion to reduce sentence	§ 3553(a) factors, seriousness, need for deterrence, and offense history weigh against reduction	Mitigating factors: remorse, family ties, health, original sentence’s impact	Court declines to exercise discretion; original sentence upheld
Impact of Amended Guidelines	New range is advisory only	New range should guide resentencing	Modified range noted but not grounds for reduction

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (explains procedures and limits for reducing sentences under § 3582(c))
Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (clarifies district courts' discretion in applying retroactive amendments to sentences)
United States v. Wales, 977 F.2d 1323 (notes the permissive, not mandatory, nature of sentence reductions under retroactive amendments)