Filed: Nov. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Defendant Martin Garcia-Chavez, proceeding pro se 1 , has filed a motion to reduce his sentence based on 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). ECF No. 536. The government opposes the motion. ECF No. 553. Defendant relies on Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. 1B1.10, which became effective November 1, 2014 and lowered by two points the base offense level for most drug trafficking offenses. The Amendment applies retroactively to defendants sentenced prior to its effec
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Defendant Martin Garcia-Chavez, proceeding pro se 1 , has filed a motion to reduce his sentence based on 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). ECF No. 536. The government opposes the motion. ECF No. 553. Defendant relies on Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. 1B1.10, which became effective November 1, 2014 and lowered by two points the base offense level for most drug trafficking offenses. The Amendment applies retroactively to defendants sentenced prior to its effect..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Defendant Martin Garcia-Chavez, proceeding pro se1, has filed a motion to reduce his sentence based on 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). ECF No. 536. The government opposes the motion. ECF No. 553.
Defendant relies on Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, which became effective November 1, 2014 and lowered by two points the base offense level for most drug trafficking offenses. The Amendment applies retroactively to defendants sentenced prior to its effective date. See Serrano v. United States, 2014 WL 6773237 (E.D. Cal. 2014), slip op. at 1. After consideration of the moving papers, the relevant parts of the record, and applicable legal principles, the court denies defendant's motion.
On September 30, 2015, defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture at least 100 marijuana plants and possession of a firearm in furtherance of that drug trafficking crime. ECF Nos. 476, 482. Defendant's plea was in accordance with a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. ECF Nos. 476, 482. On January 20, 2016, defendant was sentenced to a total of 144 months in prison. ECF No. 121.
The authority of the district courts to modify a prison sentence is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3582. In relevant part, § 3582 provides:
(2) 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant . . ., the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
As the Ninth Circuit recognizes, "[t]he Supreme Court has clarified that section 3582(c)(2) requires a two-step inquiry." United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010)). "First, a district court must determine whether a prisoner is eligible for a sentence modification under the Commission's policy statement in U.S.S.G §1B1.10." Id. (citing Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827). This is done "by "`determin[ing] the amended guideline range that would have been applicable to the defendant" had the relevant amendment been in effect at the time of the initial sentencing.' Dillon, 130 S. Ct. at 2691 (quoting §1B1.10(b)(1))." Dunn, 728 F.3d at 1155 n.3. Generally, §1B1.10 precludes reduction of a term of imprisonment below the minimum of the amended guideline range. Id. However, U.S.S.G. §1B1.10(b)(2)(B) authorizes a reduction below the amended guideline range for a defendant whose original sentence was below the applicable guideline range based on substantial assistance to the government.2
Assuming arguendo that defendant's Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement does not preclude the court's exercise of jurisdiction over this motion, see generally United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), defendant is not entitled to relief. As noted above, Amendment 782 became effective on November 1, 2014 and reduced by two points the base offense level for most drug trafficking offenses. Here, defendant's base offense level was calculated using the 2015 United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, which incorporated all relevant guideline amendments, including the reduced base offense levels effected by Amendment 782. See PSR ¶ 27.3 A fortiori, Amendment 782 did not reduce defendant's sentencing guideline range and his motion will be denied.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Martin Garcia-Chavez's motion to reduce sentence, ECF No. 536, is denied.
