Opinion
Case No.: CR-2-95-044 (004)
02-11-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANTWAN WOODS, et al., Defendants.
JUDGE SMITH
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Antwan Woods's Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), in an "Agreed Disposition Case." (Doc. 1824). This motion was filed on January 30, 2014. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.
On March 23, 1995, Defendant Antwan Woods was charged along with forty co-defendants in a 185-count indictment for conspiracy to distribute more than five grams of cocaine and crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846; distribution of more than five grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) and 18 U.S.C. §2; possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(iii); and use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §924(C). (Doc. 1). Defendant, along with seven of his co- defendants, proceeded to a jury trial. On November 8, 1995, Defendant Woods was found guilty, as charged. (Docs. 835, 839). On April 4, 1996, Defendant was sentenced to 420 months imprison plus 60 months on the firearms charge, with five years supervised release based on an offense level 38 and a criminal history category VI. (Docs. 974, 975).
On April 16, 1999, the Sixth Circuit reversed Defendant's conviction on use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, and remanded the case for re-sentencing. On April 27, 2000, Defendant was re-sentenced to 396 months imprisonment with five years supervised release. (Doc. 1413).
Defendant's base offense level was reduced two levels from a 38 to a 36 after the November 1, 2007 crack amendment was retroactively applied to his case. When combined with Defendant's criminal history category VI, the new advisory sentencing guideline range was 324 to 405 months. The Court granted Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence under the 2007 amendment and imposed a term of imprisonment of 360 months. (See Doc. 1775).
On November 1, 2010, as part of the congressional directive embedded in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the United States Sentencing Commission promulgated Guideline Amendment 748 which calibrated the crack cocaine guidelines of §2D1.1 to an 18:1 ratio. On June 30, 2011, the Commission promulgated Guideline Amendment 750 which effectively amended U.S.S.G. §1B1.10 to authorize the retroactive application of Guideline Amendment 748 to all defendants who are serving crack sentences as long as they meet certain eligibility criteria. Defendant Woods's case has been reviewed and all agreed to recommend to this Court that Defendant met the Commission's eligibility requirements for the retroactive application of Guideline Amendment 748 to his case.
Defendant, through counsel, seeks an additional reduction of his sentence under the November 1, 2010 crack amendment. The parties are in agreement that technically Defendant's base offense level is not affected by the 2010 amendment. Defendant's base offense level remains at a 36, combined with a criminal history VI, his advisory guideline range remains at 324 to 405 months. Nonetheless, the parties jointly recommend that the Court reduce Defendant's sentence to 324 months, the minimum guideline sentence at this range. In support of this Motion, the parties assert that the unique facts about Defendant's case and his behavior while incarcerated suggest that he would not present a danger to the public if a reduction is granted.
Whether to grant a reduction of sentence pursuant to §3582(c)(2) is within the discretion of the court. United States v. Ursery, 109 F.3d 1129, 1137 (6 Cir. 1997). Although a defendant may qualify for a reduction in sentence, a reduction is not automatic. See United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11 Cir. 1998) ("The grant of authority to the district court to reduce a term of imprisonment is unambiguously discretionary."). In considering whether a reduced sentence is appropriate, this court must consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable. See §3582(c)(2).
Upon consideration of Defendant's motion and that statutory sentencing factors set forth in §3553(a), the Court concludes that a reduction of Defendant's term of incarceration is appropriate in light of the reduction in the applicable guideline range. The Court has considered the need to protect the public from further crimes of the Defendant and concludes that even with the reduction in sentence, Defendant will be incarcerated for a very lengthy period of time to protect the public and hopefully rehabilitate Defendant from committing future crimes. The sentence of 360 months incarceration previously imposed in this case is hereby reduced to a term of incarceration of 324 months. Therefore, Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence is GRANTED.
The Clerk shall remove Document 1824 from the Court's pending motions list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT