Filed: Oct. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LEON JORDAN , District Judge . The defendant has written to the Court requesting a form "to file a motion on the Amendment `782.'" [Doc. 943]. By such a motion, the defendant would ask the Court to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and in accordance with Amendments 782 and 788 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G."). District courts have discretion to reduce the sentence "of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of im
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LEON JORDAN , District Judge . The defendant has written to the Court requesting a form "to file a motion on the Amendment `782.'" [Doc. 943]. By such a motion, the defendant would ask the Court to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and in accordance with Amendments 782 and 788 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G."). District courts have discretion to reduce the sentence "of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imp..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LEON JORDAN, District Judge.
The defendant has written to the Court requesting a form "to file a motion on the Amendment `782.'" [Doc. 943]. By such a motion, the defendant would ask the Court to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and in accordance with Amendments 782 and 788 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G.").
District courts have discretion to reduce the sentence "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. . ., if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In the present case, the defendant was not sentenced based on a guideline range that has since been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.
Amendment 782, which became effective on November 1, 2014, revised the guidelines applicable to drug-trafficking offenses by reducing the offense levels assigned to the drug and chemical quantities described in guidelines 2D1.1 and 2D1.11. See U.S.S.G app. C, amend. 782 (2014). Amendment 788, which also became effective on November 1, 2014, identified Amendment 782 as retroactive. See id., amend. 788.
This Court sentenced the defendant on August 10, 2017, after Amendment 782 went into effect. Amendment 782's reduced offense levels have already been applied in this case. [PSR ¶ 29]. Thus, the defendant's guideline range has not been lowered as a result of Amendment 782's revision of the sentencing guidelines' § 2D1.1 Drug Quantity Table, and for that reason he is ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief.
Further, the defendant was determined to be a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). [PSR § 36]. Because the defendant's sentence was based on the career offender guideline rather than U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, he is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See, e.g., United States v. Riley, 726 F.3d 756, 761 (6th Cir. 2013) (A defendant whose "sentence was not `based on' § 2D1.1 . . . is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)[.]").
For all these reasons, the defendant's pro se request [doc. 943] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
