Opinion
19 CR 619-01 (CM)
11-01-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIFFANY DAYS, Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3742(E)
McMahon, J.
On July 27, 2020, Tiffany Days pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine, MDMA and Fentanyl. On April 29, 2021, Days was sentenced to a term of sixty months imprisonment, and four years supervised release. Days is currently serving her sentence at Alderson Federal Prison Camp-her current release date is November 16, 2023.
In or about October 13, 2022, Days filed papers with the court entitled “Motion for Reconsideration 18 U.S.C. 3742(e) Post Sentencing Rehabilitation Programming.” In support of her motion, Days cites Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011). In Pepper, the Supreme Court held that post-sentencing rehabilitation evidence can be considered by the District Court to support a downward variance from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines “when a defendant's sentence has been set aside on appeal.” Id. at 481. Thus, § 3742 deals with review of a sentence after an appeal by the defendant or the Government and the District Court does not enter into this process unless the Court of Appeals remands for resentencing. Given that there has been no appeal of the sentence by either the defendant or the Government in this case, and the Second Circuit has not remanded for resentencing, there is no authority for the Court to reduce Days' sentence pursuant § 3742, based on post-conviction rehabilitation.
While the Defendant cites 18 U.S.C. §3742(e), this section deals with Court of Appeals consideration of sentencing on appeal. Given the request that the Defendant is making, the Court will consider 18 U.S.C. §3742(f) to be guiding this request instead as it deals with resentencing at the District Court level.
Ms. Days received the statutory mandatory minimum sentence-the lowest sentence available for her crime of conviction. While there is authority for setting aside a mandatory minimum sentence on a motion for compassionate release, United States v. Halvon, 26 F.4th 566, 570 (2d Cir.. 2022) (“We now explicitly hold that a mandatory minimum sentence does not preclude a district court from reducing a term of imprisonment on a motion for compassionate release.”), there is no authority that allows the Court to reduce a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum set by Congress for any other reason.
Defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied.