ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE

ALFRED V. COVELLO, District Judge.

On May 4, 2010, this court sentenced the defendant, Victor Nieves, to a mandatory minimum term of 120 months incarceration followed by an 8-year term of supervised release for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a) (1), 841 (b) (1) (B), and 846. On November 10, 2014, Nieves filed the within motion seeking to reduce his term of incarceration. For the reasons articulated below, Nieves is not entitled to a reduction of his sentence and the motion [doc. no. 784] is DENIED.

The government responds that "Nieves is not eligible for the relief he is seeking in this motion." Specifically, the government contends that "[w]here a defendant was sentenced to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, he is not eligible for a sentencing reduction under § 3582, as the Sentencing Commission has no authority to alter a statutory mandatory penalty."

The United States Sentencing Commission recently amended the base offense levels listed in the drug quantity tables in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. In general, amendment 782 reduced the offense levels for certain quantities by two levels. Although "[a] federal court generally `may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed,'" Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819 (2010) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)), "Congress has authorized courts to modify a term of imprisonment ... in limited circumstances." United States v. Williams, 551 F.3d 182, 185 (2d Cir. 2009). Specifically, when a defendant is "sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission ... the court may reduce the term of imprisonment ... if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c) (2).

In this case, the drug quantity table used at the time of sentencing yielded a sentencing range of 70 to 87 months. Because Nieves had previously been convicted of a felony drug offense, he was subject to a ten-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (B). This mandatory minimum sentence exceeded the maximum sentence under the applicable guideline range, and therefore, the mandatory minimum sentence became the guideline sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5Gl.1 (b) . Accordingly, the court sentenced the defendant to a mandatory minimum term of 120 months incarceration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b) (1) (B).

This application is consistent with a policy statement issued by the sentencing commission barring a sentence reduction if a retroactive amendment "does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range." U.S.S.G. § 1Bl.10(a) (2) (B). The second circuit has recognized that the commentary following this policy statement provides further support:

United States v. Williams, 551 F.3d 182, 186 (2d Cir. 2009). As noted above, a district court has the authority to reduce a sentence only when doing so is "consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission," 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2). Therefore, the court additionally concludes that Nieves is not entitled to a sentence reduction because any reduction would be inconsistent with the policy statement found in U.S. S. G. § 1Bl. 10 (a) (2) (B) .The operation of the statutory mandatory minimum 120-month term of imprisonment precludes amendment 782 from having any effect in lowering Nieves's applicable guideline range.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion [doc. no. 784] is DENIED. It is so ordered this 23rd day of December 2014, at Hartford, Connecticut.