MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, Chief District Judge.
This case is before the court for ruling on the pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence (#59) filed by Defendant, Patrick Spain. Following this court's careful analysis, Defendant's pro se Motion (#59) is DENIED.
The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010), reduced the disparity between sentences related to cocaine and sentences related to cocaine base ("crack"). 124 Stat. at 2372. The FSA also contained directives requiring the Sentencing Commission to amend the Sentencing Guidelines.
On November 8, 2011, this court entered an Order (#61) and allowed Defendant's counsel, the Federal Public Defender, to withdraw from this case. This court stated that Defendant's counsel had accurately assessed the situation when he concluded that Defendant is ineligible for a reduction in his sentence because Defendant was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. This court allowed Defendant to proceed pro se and gave Defendant 30 days to file a pleading which either conceded that he was not eligible for a sentence reduction or explained why the 2011 retroactive amendment does in fact have the effect of lowering his sentence. On December 5, 2011, Defendant filed his Response (#62) and asked this court to reduce. Defendant argued that this court has discretion to reduce his sentence under the retroactive amendment to the sentencing guidelines as well as the FSA. Defendant attached documentation showing that he has developed skills and progressed well in the Federal Bureau of Prisons
Federal courts are forbidden, as a general matter, to "`modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed,' 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); but the rule of finality is subject to a few narrow exceptions."
In this case, Defendant's sentence was not based on the offense level set forth in § 2D1.1, which has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, but rather on the statutory mandatory minimum sentence for his offense. Because Amendment 750 did not change the statutory mandatory minimum, Defendant does not qualify for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
In addition, Defendant is not entitled to relief under the FSA. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the FSA is not retroactive.
This court therefore concludes that there is no basis for reducing Defendant's sentence and his pro so Motion to Reduce Sentence (#59) must be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant's pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence (#59) is DENIED.