Filed: Jun. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 21, 2012
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. No. 384 ] JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge. In March 2006, this Court sentenced Defendant Norman Pomales to 240 months' imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. 1 Pomales now moves for a reduction in that sentence, see 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) ; United Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) 1B1.10 (2011) , pointing out that pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the Sentencing Commission retroactively redu
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. No. 384 ] JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge. In March 2006, this Court sentenced Defendant Norman Pomales to 240 months' imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. 1 Pomales now moves for a reduction in that sentence, see 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) ; United Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) 1B1.10 (2011) , pointing out that pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the Sentencing Commission retroactively reduc..
More
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. No. 384]
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
In March 2006, this Court sentenced Defendant Norman Pomales to 240 months' imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base.1 Pomales now moves for a reduction in that sentence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 1B1.10 (2011), pointing out that pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the Sentencing Commission retroactively reduced the guidelines sentences for cocaine-base offenses.2 [Doc. 384.] The United States opposes the motion. [Doc. 385.] The Court concludes that Pomales's requested reduction is not "consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission," 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and denies Pomales's motion.
At Pomales's sentencing, the Court calculated a total offense level 40 and a criminal-history category IV, which resulted in a guidelines range of 360 months' to life imprisonment.3 After applying the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the Court sentenced Pomales to 240 months' imprisonment. According to the new (and retroactive) drug-table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, however, Pomales's amended guidelines range is 262 to 327 months' imprisonment. Therefore, Pomales says, the Court should resentence him with an "equally-proportionate variance . . . which equates to 174 months [imprisonment]." [Doc. 384 at 6.]
The Court has some authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 to reduce a previously imposed sentence. In particular, § 3582(c)(2) provides that
in the case of a defendant who has been 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). Accordingly, § 3582(c)(2) authorizes the Court to reduce Pomales's sentence only if (1) that sentence is "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered" and (2) "if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." Id.
Regardless of whether Pomales's sentence was based on a range that has subsequently been lowered, the reduction he seeks is not consistent with the Sentencing Commission's policy statements. That policy statement disallows (with one exception, inapplicable to Pomales) a reduction of a defendant's term of imprisonment "to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range . . . ." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) Pomales's 240-month sentence is already a term below that of the amended guidelines range of 262 to 327 months' imprisonment. Accordingly, a further reduction is inconsistent with this Court's § 3582(c)(2) resentencing authority, and the Court DENIES Pomales's motion for a sentencing reduction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
