Opinion
Case No.: CR-2-95-044(13).
March 25, 2009
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Lamont Needum's Motion to Reduce Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in a Disputed Disposition Case (Doc. 1762). This Motion was filed on December 30, 2008. Defendant is seeking a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(u). On February 3, 2009, the Government filed is Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion (Doc. 1764). On March 6, 2009, the Probation Office submitted a Post-Sentencing Addendum to the Presentence Report (Doc. 1766). Defendant's Motion is now ripe for review.
Pursuant to this Court's General Order No. 08-03 filed February 22, 2008, the United States Attorney's office, the Federal Public Defender, and the Probation Department conducted a review of potential defendants who may be eligible for sentence reductions under the retroactivity provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Defendant Needum's case has been reviewed and the parties agree that Defendant is technically eligible for a reduction in his sentence under the amended guidelines, however, the Government opposes any reduction based on the violent nature of Defendant's offense conduct and criminal history. The Government asserts that Defendant would be a danger to the community if released early because his past conduct involves him holding a loaded .9mm handgun at an undercover officer's head and neck while robbing him of money. The presentence report also references a charge for delinquency for shooting another person and aggravated robbery and kidnaping.
The Probation Officer notes that while incarcerated, Defendant has been cited for refusing to obey an order, assaulting without serious injury, and for using a phone or mail without authorization. Defendant has not be cited for any incidents since July 1998. Defendant has completed his GED and completed a number of other classes while incarcerated.
Regardless of the aforementioned, the Probation Officer recommends that the Court deny Defendant's motion based on his potential safety risk to the community.
Defendant, through counsel, asserts that he does not present a danger to the community. He further asserts that his criminal history includes offenses from when he was a teenager and he has matured, is now 33 years old and is no longer the same person who was sentenced by the Court.
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 (6th 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 (11th 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).
Defendant Needum was convicted in Counts 47 and 102 with possession with intent to distribute over five grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)B)(iii). He was also convicted in Counts 92 and 96 of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Based on Defendant's total offense level of 38 and criminal history category II, Defendant was sentenced to 327 months imprisonment, the high end of the guideline range of 262-327 months.
Upon consideration of Defendant's motion and the statutory sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a), the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence. The Court shares the Government and the Probation Officer's concerns that Defendant has been a danger to the community based on his past conduct and may still pose a danger if released early. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant's original sentence of 327 months adequately reflects the seriousness of the offenses of conviction and provides just punishment.
Based on the aforementioned, Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence is DENIED. Defendant's judgment shall remain in effect.
The Clerk shall remove Document 1762 from the Court's pending motions list.