Opinion
No. 2:17-CR-211WJ
02-26-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JULIO ADRIAN CARDENAS-VELASQUEZ, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SENTENCING REDUCTION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Sentencing Reduction filed on February 9, 2018 (Doc. 24). Having considered Defendant's Motion (Doc. 24) and the United States Probation Officer's Memorandum (Doc. 25), and the applicable law, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion is not well-taken and, therefore, is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On August 21, 2017, pursuant to a plea agreement with the United States, Defendant pleaded guilty to the following charge(s): Count 1: Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute a Mixture and Substance Containing a Detectable Amount of Cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C); Count 2: Possession with Intent to Distribute a Mixture and Substance Containing a Detectable Amount of Cocaine and Aiding and Abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and Count 3: Reentry of a Removed Alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a)(1) and (2) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). See Doc. 23 at 1-2; Doc. 25.
Defendant's presentence report was disclosed on April 6, 2017, which utilized the 2016 United States Sentencing Guideline Book (U.S.S.G.). See Doc. 15 at ¶ 20 ("The 2016 Guidelines Manual, incorporating all guideline amendments, was used to determine the defendant's offense level. USSG § 1B1.11."). Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the parties agreed to a specific sentence of forty-eight (48) months. See Doc. 13 at ¶ 11. The Court imposed a sentence of forty-eight (48) months' imprisonment, followed by six (6) years of unsupervised release. See Doc. 23 at 3-4. On February 9, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion for Sentencing Reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See Doc. 24. On February 20, 2018, Victoria S. Loya, the United States Probation Officer assigned to this matter, filed a Memorandum addressing Defendant's Motion. See Doc. 25.
DISCUSSION
A sentencing court "does not have inherent authority to modify a previously imposed sentence; it may do so only pursuant to statutory authorization." United States v. Mendoza, 118 F.3d 707, 709 (10th Cir. 1997). Defendant has filed his motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which allows a district court to order a sentence reduction if the sentence was "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . ." See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In Dillon v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a district court must conduct a two-step inquiry for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2): first, the court must decide whether the defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction; and second, the court must consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and determine if a reduction is appropriate. 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010).
The Court does not reach the second step of the inquiry because it finds that Defendant is not eligible for a sentencing reduction. Here, Defendant seeks a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 782, which retroactively provides a two-point reduction for enumerated drug offenses under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See United States v. Gutierrez, 859 F.3d 1261, 1264 (10th Cir. 2017) (discussing the effects of Amendment 782) (citing U.S.S.G. supp. to app. C, amend. 782). Amendment 782 was made effective in 2014. Id. at 1268. As Defendant's Pre-Sentence Report notes, his sentencing guideline range was calculated using the 2016 United States Sentencing Guideline Book, which accounts for amendments to the guidelines from previous years. See Doc. 15 at ¶ 20; Doc. 25. The Court, therefore, finds that Defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendant's Motion for Sentencing Reduction (Doc. 24) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE