DANNY C. REEVES, District Judge.
On July 31, 2014, Defendant Billie Lou Mosley was sentenced to a term of incarceration of 68 months for her role in a conspiracy to distribute oxycodone.
This matter is pending for consideration of Mosley's motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). [Record No. 144] She argues that her sentence should be reduced as a result of the recent changes to the United States Sentencing Commission's drug tables in the United States Sentencing Guidelines. However, for the reasons explained during the sentencing hearing and outlined above, the Court declines to reduce her sentence under the circumstances presented.
A six-count Indictment was returned against Mosley and two other defendants on December 1, 2011. [Record No. 1] Mosley was charged in Count One with conspiring to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute oxycodone, in Counts Two and Six for distribution of oxycodone, and in Count Three for possessing with intent to distribute oxycodone. These charges resulted from Mosley's role in a conspiracy to distribute oxycodone from January 2011 through December 2011. Mosley acknowledged in her written Plea Agreement that her relevant conducted included 500 oxycodone 30 mg pills. [Record No. 88, p. 2] On February 24, 2012, she pleaded guilty to Count One of the Indictment and the remaining charges were dismissed at the time of sentencing.
Mosley was originally sentenced by United States District Judge Amul R. Thapar to a term of imprisonment of 97 months. [Record No. 90] However, the defendant's original sentence was vacated on appeal and the matter was remanded for further proceedings and resentencing. [Record No. 110] The defendant's case was later transferred to the undersigned and additional sentencing proceedings were held on July 31, 2014. [Record No. 139]
During re-sentencing, the Court considered all relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 including the nature of the circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, general and specific deterrence, the seriousness of the offense, and the need to protect the public. As outlined above, the undersigned determined that a sentence above the advisory guideline range was necessary to meet all statutory sentencing considerations. The subsequent amendment to the drug quantity tables does not alter this determination.
The Court continues to believe that the sentence imposed is sufficient but not greater than necessary to meet all statutory goals and objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A reduced sentence would not provide sufficient specific deterrence to this defendant or general deterrence to others inclined to engage in similar criminal activity. Finally, the Court believes that a decrease in Mosley's term of imprisonment would unduly diminish the seriousness of her offense and fail to provide adequate protection of the public. Accordingly, it is hereby
A motion filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), "is simply a vehicle through which appropriately sentenced prisoners can urge the court to exercise leniency to give [them] the benefits of an amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual. As such, it does not entitle [a prisoner] to appointed counsel." Townsend, 98 F.3d at 513 (citing Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1011). Instead, the district court has discretion to determine whether appointment of counsel is warranted. Where, as here, the record and information possessed by the Court from the original sentencing is sufficient to consider any motion filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), appointment of counsel would be unnecessary and a waste of resources.