Opinion
2:22-CR-00077-DCLC-CRW
04-17-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JACK D. VICARS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Clifton L. Corker United States District Judge
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 [Doc. 25]. The United States (the “Government”) has responded in opposition [Doc. 26]. For the reasons below, Defendant's motion [Doc. 25] is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 19, 2022, Defendant was charged by information with one count of Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and one count of Making and Subscribing a False Tax Return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) [Doc. 1, pg. 3]. On July 27, 2022, Defendant pleaded guilty to both counts [Doc. 2, pg. 1; Doc. 5]. The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) calculated his advisory guideline range to be 33 to 41 months based on an offense level of 20 and a criminal history category of I, with zero criminal history points [Doc. 10, ¶¶ 44, 49, 71]. At sentencing, the Court adopted the PSR but varied down from the advisory guideline range and sentenced Defendant to 27 months imprisonment based on his demonstrated remorse and minimal criminal history [Doc. 23, pgs. 1, 3]. Defendant's anticipated release date is September 15, 2024. See Inmate Locator, Federal Bureau of Prisons, available at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/.
Effective November 1, 2023, Guideline Amendment 821, Part B, subpart 1 amended the sentencing guidelines to provide for a two-level reduction for defendants who received zero criminal history points under Chapter Four, Part A of the Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a). The Sentencing Commission approved applying this amendment retroactively. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). The present motion followed.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A district court has “no inherent authority . . . to modify an otherwise valid sentence.” United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693, 700 (6th Cir. 2009). “A district court may modify a defendant's sentence only as provided by statute.” United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419, 421 (6th Cir. 2009). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) provides: “in the case 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 . . . the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
The Supreme Court has explained that § 3582(c)(2) requires a “two-step inquiry.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). At step one, the Court must “determine that a reduction is consistent with [U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.10.” Id. A reduction is inconsistent with § 1B1.10 if none of the amendments made retroactive in the policy statement apply to the defendant or would “have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2). In determining what reduction, if any, is appropriate, the Court “determine[s] the amended guideline range that would have been applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) . . . had been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1). The Court must “leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.” Id. With limited exceptions, “the court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment . . . to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range ....” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). Nor may the “reduced term of imprisonment be less than the term of imprisonment the defendant has already served.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(C).
At step two, the Court considers the applicable § 3553(a) factors to determine whether the authorized reduction is appropriate “in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827. “[T]he decision whether and to what extent to grant an authorized sentence reduction is discretionary.” United States v. Monday, 390 Fed.Appx. 550, 554 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419, 421 (6th Cir. 2009)). But “proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and [U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10] do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(3).
III. ANALYSIS
Here, the parties agree that Defendant satisfies the criteria of the new U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a) [Doc. 25, pgs. 1-2; Doc. 26, pg. 3]. Applying the amendment would reduce his offense level from 20 to 18 [See Doc. 23, pg. 1]; U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a). With a criminal history category of I, his amended guideline range is 27 to 33 months. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A. Defendant's current 27-month sentence is the lowest his amended guideline range permits, and the Court may not sentence him below that range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A).
Defendant notes the Court varied from his guideline range at sentencing and “requests to receive the benefit of the court's variance with a sentence of 21 months” [Doc. 25, pg. 2]. But subject to exceptions not applicable here “[t]he provisions of § 1B1.10 . . . require a resentencing court to apply the amended Guidelines range that would have been applicable to a defendant, without applying any departures [or variances] ....” United States v. Smith, 655 Fed.Appx. 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Taylor, 815 F.3d 248, 251 (6th Cir. 2016)). Thus, the Court may not consider the prior variance in determining Defendant's eligibility for a reduced sentence under the amendment.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence [Doc. 25] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED