United States v. Sardar Ashrafkhan, 129 F.4th 980

Sardar Ashrafkhan operated a fraudulent medical practice, orchestrating a scheme involving false Medicare claims and illegal opioid sales.
He was convicted at trial in 2015 of drug conspiracy, health care fraud conspiracy, and money laundering.
Ashrafkhan’s offense level was increased due to his leadership role in the crimes, but he had no prior criminal history.
After sentencing, the Sentencing Commission implemented a retroactive guideline allowing some defendants (“zero-point offenders”) a two-level sentence reduction if certain conditions are met.
Ashrafkhan sought a reduction under this guideline; the district court denied the motion, finding him ineligible due to his aggravating role adjustment.
On appeal, Ashrafkhan argued that, despite the adjustment, he qualified because he wasn’t engaged in a “continuing criminal enterprise.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility for zero-point offender reduction under § 4C1.1(a)(10)	Ashrafkhan argued he is eligible because he did not both receive an aggravating role adjustment and engage in a continuing criminal enterprise; both must be present to disqualify.	The government argued receiving either an aggravating role adjustment or being engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise makes a defendant ineligible; both are separate disqualifiers.	The court held that either condition—receiving an aggravating role adjustment or engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise—makes a defendant ineligible. District court affirmed.

United States v. Bazel, 80 F.3d 1140 (6th Cir. 1996) (interpreting similar statutory language to require satisfaction of all negative criteria to qualify for relief)
Pulsifer v. United States, 601 U.S. 124 (2024) (interpreting statutory language listing negative conditions as separate requirements for relief)
United States v. Thompson, 714 F.3d 946 (6th Cir. 2013) (explaining the two-step process for § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction proceedings)
United States v. Webb, 760 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2014) (reviewing eligibility for sentence reductions de novo)