Opinion
03 Cr. 835 (RWS).
July 20, 2008
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On February 22, 2008, Defendant Juan Castillo ("Castillo" or the "Defendant") filed a motion, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), for a sentence reduction pursuant to the recent amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, App. C, Amdts. 706, 711 (2007). For the reasons set forth below, Castillo's motion is granted, and his term of incarceration is reduced to concurrent terms of 89 months for each count of his conviction.
Prior Proceedings
On March 24, 2004, Castillo pled guilty to: (1) conspiring to distribute narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; (2) distributing crack and possessing crack with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A); and (3) distributing cocaine and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). On May 17, 2005, Castillo was sentenced to 87 months' incarceration and three years' supervised release for each of these counts, the sentences for each count to run concurrently. United States v. Castillo, No. 03 Cr. 835 (RWS), 2005 WL 1214280 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2005) (the "May 2005 Sentencing Opinion"). Castillo was also required to pay a mandatory special assessment of $300. Id.
In its May 2005 Sentencing Opinion, the Court determined that a sentence below that recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G" or the "Guidelines") was appropriate to avoid the unwarranted sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine sentences imposed under the Guidelines. Castillo, 2005 WL 1214280, at *5. Rather than applying the 100:1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine then contained in the Guidelines, the Court applied the 20:1 ratio that had recently been proposed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission and applied by other district courts. Id. In doing so, the Court reasoned: "Use of this 20:1 ratio in the present case will mitigate the disparity between this sentence and one imposed on a defendant that engaged in substantially similar conduct that involved powder cocaine rather than crack." Id.
On June 21, 2005, the Government appealed Castillo's sentence. The Second Circuit issued an opinion on August 6, 2006, reversing Castillo's sentence and remanding the case to this Court for further proceedings. United States v. Castillo, 460 F.3d 337, 361 (2d Cir. 2006), abrogated by Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 575, 169 L. Ed. 2d 481, 500 (2007). Assessing the reasonableness of the sentence imposed, the Second Circuit held that rejection of a Guidelines sentence "based only on the district court's generalized policy disagreement with the Guidelines" and "without any justification for why the § 3553(a) factors lead to a below-Guidelines sentence" failed to satisfy the Crosby standard of procedural reasonableness. Id. at 354-61 (citing United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 114-15 (2d Cir. 2005)). The Second Circuit rejected the argument that the 100:1 ratio of crack to powder cocaine produces "an unwarranted disparity within the meaning of § 3553(a)(6)." Id. at 360. However, the Court of Appeals also stated that "district courts need not sentence within the range produced by the 100:1 ratio in the Guidelines, as long as the specific facts of the case when considered in light of § 3553(a) justify it." Id. at 357-58.
On February 23, 2007, this Court resentenced Castillo. United States v. Castillo, No. 03 Cr. 835 (RWS), 2007 WL 582749, at *6-8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2007) (the "February 2007 Sentencing Opinion"). The Court found that: (1) pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1), Castillo's base offense level under the Guidelines was 38 (2) Castillo met the criteria for a "safety-valve reduction," as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(1)-(5); (3) pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), a 3-level reduction was warranted based on Castillo's acceptance of responsibility, resulting in an adjusted offense level of 33; (4) Castillo was in criminal history category I; and (5) Castillo's adjusted Guidelines range was 135 to 168 months. Id. at *5-6. Pursuant to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court found that a below-Guidelines sentence was warranted, and sentenced Castillo to concurrent terms of 111 months' incarceration and three years' supervised release for each count. Id. at *6-9. Castillo's current projected release date is June 29, 2011.
Effect of Amendments to Sentencing Guidelines
Effective November 1, 2007, the United States Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines to lower the sentencing range for certain offenses involving crack. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual App. C, Amdt. 706 (2007). On December 11, 2007, the Commission adopted amendments to § 1B1.1 of the Guidelines, authorizing retroactive application of the amended crack Guidelines, effective March 3, 2008. Id., Amdt. 711. Under the amended Guidelines, Castillo's base offense level is 36, resulting in an adjusted offense level of 31, and a sentencing range of 108-135 months.
With regard to the extent of sentence reductions authorized by the amendments, the newly amended U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 reads, in relevant part:
(A) In General. — Except as provided in subdivision (B), the court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range. . . .
(B) Exception. — If the original term of imprisonment was less than the term of imprisonment provided by the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing, a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range . . . may be appropriate. However, if the original term of imprisonment constituted a non-guideline sentence determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a further reduction generally would not be appropriate.
U.S.S.G § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)-(B).
In its response to Castillo's motion, the Government states, with regard to U.S.S.G § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), that it "interprets `further reduction' to mean any reduction below the original non-Guidelines sentence," but "recognizes, however, that the Court has the discretion to reduce the defendant's sentence below the revised Guidelines range . . . by up to 18 percent, i.e., a reduction proportional to the non-Guidelines sentence the Court imposed on resentencing." Gov't Ltr. Br. at 3. As the Government notes, an 18 percent reduction below the bottom of the amended Guidelines range of 108-135 months would yield a sentence of approximately 89 months. However, the Government opposes any reduction, on the basis that it continues to believe that a sentence within the now-amended Guidelines range is appropriate, and Castillo has already received a sentence that is below that range.
Given the Second Circuit's holding in Castillo that this Court could not determine the Defendant's sentence based on a policy disagreement with the Guidelines, 460 F.2d at 361, the Court was prohibited from considering the crack-cocaine sentencing disparity when determining Castillo's sentence on remand. His 111-month sentence was therefore determined based upon the Court's analysis of the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),see 2007 WL 582749, at *6-8, and did not take into consideration the 100:1 ratio or alternatives thereto. To now refrain from further reducing Castillo's sentence to account for the reduced crack-cocaine sentencing disparity would deny Castillo the full benefit of the variance which the Court found was warranted under § 3553(a) factors alone. Cf. United States v. Philbrick, No. 06 Cr. 35-2-SM, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48471, at *4-5 (D.N.H. June 23, 2008) (holding that although the court had considered the then-proposed amendments to the Guidelines when determining defendant's initial, below-Guidelines sentence, because the court had also taken into consideration other factors pursuant to § 3553(a), the defendant was entitled to a further sentence reduction based on the amended Guidelines); United States v. Benjamin, No. 3:06 Cr. 154, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28094, at *5 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 7, 2008) (holding that "notwithstanding the possibility that the court may have considered the § 3553 factors" in fashioning its initial, below-Guidelines sentence, because that sentence "was based on the crack-cocaine guidelines in place at the time," a proportional reduction below the amended Guidelines range was warranted).
In determining whether and to what extent a sentence reduction is warranted under the amended Guidelines, consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the Court considers the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including "(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed: (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner." See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, Cmt. 1(B)(i). The Court also considers the nature and seriousness of any danger to any person or to the community that may be posed by a reduction in the Defendant's term of imprisonment, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, Cmt. 1(B)(ii), and takes into account the post-sentencing conduct of the Defendant. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, Cmt. 1(B)(i), (iii).
The Court is not aware of any public safety considerations that would recommend against reducing Castillo's sentence. With regard to Castillo's post-sentencing conduct, the Government states, and the Court agrees, that based on a review of his disciplinary record while in Bureau of Prisons custody, the Defendant "does not have any significant disciplinary issues that counsel against granting a sentence reduction." Gov't Ltr. Br. at 3-4. Moreover, with regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the Defendant, Castillo was not charged with or convicted of any violent or firearms-related offenses, and he has no prior convictions. A reduced sentence of 89 months would reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, and afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.
Conclusion
Castillo's term of imprisonment is hereby reduced to 89 months for each count of his conviction, with such terms to run concurrently.
The terms of Castillo's sentence will remain in effect in all respects other than the term of imprisonment, including all of the conditions of supervised release.
It is so ordered.