United States v. Cannon

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. LAWRENCE CANNON DEFENDANT

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas

Date published: Nov 27, 2023

3:20-CR-00001-01-LPR (E.D. Ark. Nov. 27, 2023)

Opinion

3:20-CR-00001-01-LPR

11-27-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. LAWRENCE CANNON DEFENDANT

LEE P. RUDOFSKY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

LEE P. RUDOFSKY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence (Doc. 89) is DENIED.

On March 14, 2022, the Court sentenced Defendant to 96 months in prison for being a felon in possession of a firearm.¹ On November 2, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to reduce sentence based on Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, Defendant “is seeking a reduction based on the ‘gross disparity' which created extraordinary and compelling circumstances” and a “status point” reduction.²

1 Docs. 75, 76.

2 Doc. 89 at 4, 8.

Defendant's disparity issue is a rehash of his objection to the Court's upward variance. This argument already was rejected by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.³ Furthermore, as the Court announced at sentencing, Defendant's decision to go into a club full of people while inebriated is “among the most dangerous conduct there can be for a felon in possession.”⁴ The Eighth Circuit noted that the upward variance was “firmly grounded in the offense conduct, [Defendant's] criminal history and characteristics, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.”⁵ There is no disparity that warrants a reduction. Rather, Defendant simply disagrees with the upward variance.

3 Doc. 86.

4 Docs. 84 at 49.

5 Doc. 86 at 4.

Defendant also argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction based on Amendment 821, which removed “status points” for offenses committed while under a criminal justice system. Applying retroactive guideline Amendment 821 reduces Defendant's criminal history score by 1 point - from 18 to 17. However, his criminal history category remains VI, which means his guideline range has not changed.⁶ Accordingly, he is not entitled to relief.

6 See U.S.S.G 1.10 (a)(2) (“Exclusions.-A reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if- . . . an amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.