Opinion
CASE NO.: CR-2-93-044.
July 27, 2009
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Vincent L. Watkins's Pro Se Motion for Reduction of Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Doc. 125). This Motion was filed on February 25, 2008. On March 11, 2008, the Government and the Federal Public Defender filed a Joint Motion to Stay a ruling on Defendant's Motion to allow time for both parties, in conjunction with the Probation Department, to review Defendant's case prior to the Court ruling on the merits of Defendant's Motion (Doc. 127) and the Motion was granted, staying the case on March 31, 2008 (Doc. 128). On April 24, 2008, the Government filed its Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion (Doc. 129). On May 16, 2008, Defendant filed a Pro Se Answer to the Government's Motion in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence (Doc. 131). On October 9, 2008, Defendant's newly retained counsel, Jeffrey M. Brandt, filed a Motion to Enter Appearance and Request for Stay in Ruling on Pending Motion (Doc. 133). On February 9, 2009, Defendant's counsel then filed a Supplemental Reply to Government's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Doc. 134). Defendant has also filed a Judicial Notification of the Right to Challenge Information contained in the Presentence Report utilized by the Court and requested a hearing in the motion (Doc. 130). Defendant has also submitted numerous letters in support of his motion for reduction of sentence (Doc. 132). Defendant's Motions are now ripe for review.
In May 1993, Defendant was found guilty after a jury trial to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. On September 15, 1993, Defendant Vincent Watkins was sentenced to life imprisonment based on a total offense level of 44 and criminal history category VI.
Defendant is seeking a reduction in his term of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant concedes that he may not be technically eligible for the reduction because he was held accountable for more than 4.5 kilograms of cocaine base, but urges the Court to grant his motion in light of the change to the guidelines calculations and other fundamental new views of sentencing crack cocaine offenders. Defendant submits that the guidelines are advisory and the Sentencing Commission's policy statements do not and cannot limit the district court and cannot prohibit it from granting a reduction below the Guideline range called for after application of the amended offense level calculations. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Defendant asserts that the Court cannot apply amended § 1B1.10 as mandatory because that would violate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Booker. Defendant further asserts that once the authority to revisit the sentence has been triggered, the court has a duty to ensure that the new sentence is consistent with the § 3553(a) factors and the Commission's policy statements. Defendant urges the Court to consider that the crack cocaine and powder cocaine disparity is still applicable in this case and the Court should reduce Defendant's sentence to rectify the disparity. Defendant also asserts that his post-sentencing rehabilitation, including obtaining his GED and completing other programs, weigh in favor of reducing his sentence. Defendant Watkins submits that he has been rehabilitated and will never again become involved in illegal conduct again.
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 Watkins's case has been reviewed and the Government argues that the Defendant's Motion must be denied because, notwithstanding the guideline amendment, the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the Defendant's guidelines range. ( See Doc. 129 at 1). No reduction of sentence may occur when the application of the pertinent amendment does not result in a different sentencing range. See United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 984 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Allison, 63 F.3d 350, 352-54 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Dorrough, 84 F.3d 1309, 1311-12 (10th Cir. 1996) (the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion, where an alternative means of sentencing permitted by the applicable guideline produced the same offense level which applied earlier); United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 908 (11th Cir. 2003) (the district court correctly denied the motion, where the defendant's offense level was not altered by the subject of the retroactive amendment).
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).
In the case at bar, Defendant was attributed with 7.7957 kilograms of cocaine base. Based on that amount, he was assigned an offense level 40. Defendant received 2 additional points for obstruction of justice and 2 more points for his leadership role in the offense. Therefore, Defendant Watkins received a total offense level of 44 and with a criminal history category VI, that led to a Guidelines sentence of life in prison.
In 1994, the United States Sentencing Commission in Amendment 505, amended § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, making level 38 the highest offense level based solely on drug quantity. The effect of Amendment 505 on Defendant's case lowered his base offense level to 38, plus the additional 4 points, results in a total offense level of 42, reducing the guideline range from life to 360 to life. Defendant Watkins has previously filed three motions with the Court seeking a reduction of sentence pursuant to Amendment 505. Each time, the Court has considered and denied those motions. ( See Docs. 82, 108, and 112). Therefore, the Court will not consider any reduction based on Amendment 505.
Defendant also seeks a reduction based on the most recent amendment to the Guidelines, Amendment 706, which reduced certain offense levels pertaining to crack cocaine. However, this amendment does not change the offense level as it pertains to Defendant Watkins because he was attributed with more than 4.5 kilograms of cocaine base. Any quantity of 4.5 kilograms of cocaine base or more is still a level 38 offense level. Defendant's offense level would still be calculated at a 42, resulting in the guideline range of 360 to life. Therefore, Defendant's guideline range is unaffected by Amendment 706 and Defendant's offense level remains exactly what it was at the time of sentencing.
The Court has reviewed all the documents submitted by Defendant in support of his motion, including the letters, but does not find any justification for reducing his sentence. Further, the Court does not find any basis for a hearing on Defendant's Motion at this time. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to challenge information and request for hearing (Doc. 130) is DENIED. Based on the aforementioned, Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence is DENIED. Defendant Watkins' sentence was not affected by Amendment 706 and therefore pursuant to Section 1B1.10 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, Defendant's sentence must remain the same.
Further, Defendant's Motion to Enter Appearance and Request for Stay in Ruling on Pending Motion (Doc. 133) is MOOT.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 125, 130, and 133 from the Court's pending motions list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.