Opinion
Case No.: 4:12 CR 306
11-03-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. KOREY MOODY, Defendant
ORDER
Currently pending before the court is Defendant Korey Moody's ("Defendant") Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) ("Motion") (ECF No. 46). For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion is denied.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 14, 2013, Defendant agreed to plead guilty to Count I of the Indictment, knowingly and intentionally possessing with the intent to distribute more than 5 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The presentence report ("PSR") provided a Base Offense Level of 26 according to the 2012 United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G." or "Sentencing Guidelines") § 2D1.1 table, due to the attributable drug quantity of at least 28 grams but less than 112 grams of cocaine base. (PSR at 7, ECF No. 38.) The PSR recommended the three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in an adjusted offense level of 23. (Id.) The PSR recommended that the court find Defendant to be in Criminal History Category VI. (Id. at 8, ECF No. 38.)
The PSR advised that, based on the Total Offense Level of 23 and a Criminal History Category VI, Defendant's guideline range was 92 to 115 months. However, the statutorily required minimum sentence of 120 months, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and § 851, was greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range. (Id. at 23, ECF No. 38.) As a result, the PSR ultimately suggested that, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b), the applicable guidelines range should be based on Offense Level 24 and Criminal History Category VI, because that guideline range incorporated the mandatory minimum of 120 months. (Id.)
On June 20, 2013, at Defendant's sentencing hearing, the court found that the Base Offense Level was 24, as recommended by the PSR. The court then lowered the Offense Level from 24 to 19 based on Defendant's acceptance of responsibility and his substantial assistance. As a result of his substantial assistance, the court was able to sentence lower than the mandatory minimum of ten years. The court found that Defendant's criminal history level corresponded to Criminal History Category VI and thus the applicable sentencing range was 63 to 78 months. Subsequently, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court varied the range downward to 51 to 63 months because of Defendant's severe medical circumstances and the extreme hardships he suffered as a child. The court then sentenced Defendant to 53 months to be served concurrent with his state sentence.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendant moves for an Order reducing his Base Offense Level by two levels pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and an Amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, but does not specify which Amendment he seeks to apply. (Mot., ECF No. 46, at 1-2.) The Government seems to apply Amendment 782, arguing that Defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction because he received a sentence at or below the now-amended guideline range. (Gov't's Resp. at 2, ECF No. 49.) The court finds that Defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction because his sentence was based on a statutorily required minimum, and thus his sentence was not amended by an Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines.
A. Statutory Background
The Sixth Circuit has stated, "there is no inherent authority for a district court to modify an otherwise valid sentence." United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693, 700 (6th Cir. 2009). Instead, "[t]he authority of a district court to resentence a defendant is limited by statute." United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743, 748-49 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Ross, 245 F.3d 577, 585 (6th Cir. 2001)). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), Congress allows a district court to modify a term of imprisonment when the defendant "has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) . . . ." Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) states that the reduction must be "consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission."
B. "Based On" A Lowered Sentencing Range
Defendant has not satisfied the eligibility requirement because his sentence was not "based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission." Under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b), "[w]here a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence." Here, the statutorily required minimum of 120 months became the guideline sentence since it was greater than the maximum guideline sentence of 115 months.
The Sixth Circuit noted that a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines "cannot override any mandatory statutory minimum sentence set forth by Congress." United States v. Green, 532 F.3d 538, 546 n.8 (6th Cir. 2008). See also United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419, 423 (6th Cir. 2009) (affirming district court's denial of sentence reduction because defendant was not sentenced based on a Sentencing Guidelines range that was subsequently reduced but rather his sentence was based on an unchanged statutorily required minimum); United States v. Alford, No. 4:07CR237, 2010 WL 3001941, at *3 (N.D. Ohio July 29, 2010) (same as Johnson). The "Application Note 1(A) to § 1B1.10 clarifies that a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is expressly prohibited when the amendment does not reduce the defendant's guideline range 'because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment).'" Alford, 2010 WL 3001941, at *3 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1 (2010)).
Here, Defendant's sentence was based on the statutorily required minimum of 120 months, which corresponded to the Base Offense Level of 24. The subsequent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, including Amendment 782, do not override the mandatory statutory minimum of 120 months. Furthermore, if Defendant was resentenced today, the starting point would still be at the statutory mandatory minimum, and thus the 120-month guideline would be the same before and after Amendment 782 was adopted. Because the sentencing range that Defendant's term of imprisonment was based upon was not amended by Amendment 782, or any other amendment, and not lowered by the Sentencing Commission, Defendant does not qualify for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
For the reasons stated above, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Defendant's sentence, and therefore, Defendant's Motion is denied.
III. CONCLUSION
Because Defendant was sentenced based on an unchanged statutory mandatory minimum, and he was not sentenced based on a Sentencing Guidelines range that has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, the court lacks jurisdiction, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), to modify his sentence. Accordingly, the court denies Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 46.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
November 3, 2015