Filed: May 16, 2017
Latest Update: May 16, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE INQUIRIES ABOUT SENTENCING REDUCTIONS PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT 794 WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . In September 2015, the undersigned judge sentenced defendants Aaron Huang, Chao Wen Wu, and Jeffrey Kam Hung Chu. On November 1, 2015, the United States Sentencing Commission passed Amendment 794 to the sentencing guidelines, which identified several factors to be considered in applying a "minor role" adjustment to defendants' offense level in drug cases, which had been applied inconsis
Summary: ORDER RE INQUIRIES ABOUT SENTENCING REDUCTIONS PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT 794 WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . In September 2015, the undersigned judge sentenced defendants Aaron Huang, Chao Wen Wu, and Jeffrey Kam Hung Chu. On November 1, 2015, the United States Sentencing Commission passed Amendment 794 to the sentencing guidelines, which identified several factors to be considered in applying a "minor role" adjustment to defendants' offense level in drug cases, which had been applied inconsist..
More
ORDER RE INQUIRIES ABOUT SENTENCING REDUCTIONS PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT 794
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
In September 2015, the undersigned judge sentenced defendants Aaron Huang, Chao Wen Wu, and Jeffrey Kam Hung Chu. On November 1, 2015, the United States Sentencing Commission passed Amendment 794 to the sentencing guidelines, which identified several factors to be considered in applying a "minor role" adjustment to defendants' offense level in drug cases, which had been applied inconsistently before the amendment.
Defendants filed pro se letters inquiring whether they would be entitled to sentencing reductions pursuant to Amendment 794. The United States and the Probation Office have both advised that our defendants' offenses do not merit minor-role adjustments, however, this order denies defendants' requests for a different reason.
Amendment 794 "resolved a circuit split, and was intended as a clarifying amendment." United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). Quintero-Leyva held that Amendment 794 applied retroactively in direct appeals, but it did not address whether it could apply to motions to reduce sentences. The only appropriate motion for a sentencing reduction in this context would be under Section 3582. See Hamilton v. United States, 67 F.3d 761, 763 (9th Cir. 1995). A clarifying amendment is not retroactive for a motion under Section 3582. United States v. Stokes, 300 Fed. Appx. 507, 508 (9th Cir. 2008); see also United States. v. Nunez, No. 13-cr-00383, 2017 WL 119169, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2017) (Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton) (addressing the same issue regarding Amendment 794). Notably, Amendment 794 has not been given retroactive effect for the purposes of a motion for a sentence reduction under Section 3582 inasmuch as it is not listed among the covered amendments in U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(d) that warrant a reduction pursuant to that section.
Accordingly, to the extent defendants' motions can be characterized as motions for sentencing reductions, such motions are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
