Opinion
3:10-cr-0089-RCJ-VCP
01-26-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RAFAEL ARIAS, Defendant.
ORDER
On October 24, 2011, the Court sentenced Defendant Rafael Arias to 220 months of imprisonment on Count 2 of the Second Superseding Indictment for distribution of a controlled substance. Defendant and the Government have filed a joint stipulation asking the Court to reduce Defendant's sentence to 173 months of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) (ECF No. 163). The Probation Office has recommended denying the motion because Defendant's behavior while in custody indicates he would pose a threat to the safety of the public if released.
A district court has discretion in applying a sentence reduction based on a retroactive amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Chaney, 581 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009). "[I]n making its determination, the court 'shall consider the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment' and 'may consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant that occurred after imposition of the original term of imprisonment.'" United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (quoting Chaney, 581 F.3d at 1126) (footnotes omitted). In Lightfoot itself, the Court of Appeals upheld a district court's denial of a sentence reduction based on a record showing "insolence to custodial staff, fighting, threatening a staff member, threatening bodily harm, and refusing to work." Id.
The Court finds that a sentence reduction is not appropriate in this case. Defendant's disciplinary log indicates he has been disciplined for multiple infractions, including being absent from an assignment, using drugs and alcohol, refusing drug or alcohol tests, refusing to obey an order, and threatening bodily harm. The Probation Office has concluded that Defendant continues to pose a threat to the public's safety and his own welfare. Based on Defendant's post-sentence conduct and the ongoing threat he poses to public safety, the Court denies the request for a sentence reduction.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for a Sentence Reduction (ECF No. 163) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: This 26th day of January, 2016.
/s/_________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge