United States v. Harlie

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHRYSTAL HARLIE

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

Date published: Jan 9, 2017

CR 614-020 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 9, 2017)

Opinion

CR 614-020

01-09-2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHRYSTAL HARLIE

HONORABLE J. RANDAL HALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ORDER

On November 21, 2016, Defendant Chrystal Harlie filed a motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based upon Amendment 794 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which sets out new guidelines for the determination of whether a defendant should be granted a mitigating role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

Defendant was sentenced prior to the effective date of Amendment 794. Even assuming Defendant is correct, i.e., that her conduct would qualify her for a "minor role" reduction, a court may not modify a sentence once it has been imposed except under limited circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). And, while one of the exceptions provides that a sentence may be reduced if it is based on a lowered guideline range, § 3582(c)(2) is only triggered by an amendment listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). ("In determining whether, and to what extent, a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . is warranted, . . . the court shall substitute only the amendments listed in subsection (d) . . . and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected" (emphasis added).). Amendment 794 is not a listed amendment in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d).¹ Consequently, Amendment 794 would not be available to Defendant.²

1 Indeed, the Sentencing Commission stated that Amendment 794 is intended only as a clarifying amendment. U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 794 (Reason for Amend.) ("This amendment provides additional guidance to sentencing courts in determining whether a mitigating role adjustment applies.").

2 The case cited by Defendant out of the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522 (9^th Cir. 2016), is inapplicable because it held that Amendment 794 may be applied retroactively to direct appeals. There is no authority that Amendment 794 may be applied in a post-conviction context. --------

Upon the foregoing, Defendant's motion to reduce sentence (doc. 31) is DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this 9^th day of January, 2017.

/s/_________

HONORABLE J. RANDAL HALL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA