Opinion
4:20-cr-40047
05-22-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. TYLER JUSTIN HAUSTEN, Defendant
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence pursuant to Amendment 821 to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, (Doc. 88). The Government has responded, (Doc. 93), and the Federal Public Defender's Office has notified the Court of its intent not to supplement, (Docket 2/29/2024).
Subsequently, Defendant filed an additional document he characterized as a Motion to Consider Sentence Reduction, (Doc. 91). In this document he notes that he obtained relief pursuant to Rule 35 and asks for an additional reduction based on testimony given at trial. He requests immediate release based on Rule 35 plus his work and educational endeavors while in prison. His current release date is August 12, 2024. The Court requested that the Government respond to Defendant's assertion that he was entitled to an additional sentence reduction. (Doc. 95). The Government's response indicates that, as is routine procedure,
Defendant was apprised of the provisions of Rule 35, acknowledged at the trial in which he testified that he understood what would be required, and also acknowledged he had been given a sentence reduction. (Doc. 99).
For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendant's motions.
BACKGROUND
The Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. (Doc. 44, 48). The charges arose in connection with a multi-defendant conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, orchestrated from the South Dakota State Penitentiary. The coconspirators' activities included drug distribution, bulk cash transfers, and money wires domestically and with co-conspirators in Mexico. After calculation of Defendant's base offense level, he received a 3-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility and a reduction based on his minor role in the offense, resulting in an offense level of 26. (Doc. 75). His prior convictions resulted in 21 criminal history points, including 2 status points for committing the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence. His criminal history category was VI. (Id.). The imprisonment range pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines was 120-150 months which also reflected the mandatory minimum of 120 months. (Doc. 75-1). The Court imposed a sentence of 126 months. (Doc. 75). Subsequently the Court reduced the sentence to 63 months. (Doc. 84, 85).
Defendant now requests a reduction in sentence pursuant to a recent amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines which was made retroactive. (Doc. 88). He also requests release prior to his release date based on his trial testimony which yielded a Rule 35 reduction. (Doc. 91).
LEGAL STANDARD
1. Release based on Amendment 821.
Ordinarily, a court may not modify a sentence once it has been imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3582. The statute creates an exception for a term of imprisonment “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission...”. Id. § 3582(c). In such a situation, the court engages in the two-step procedure set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). That procedure requires a determination whether the applicant qualifies for relief under § 3582(c), followed by ascertaining the pertinent guideline range. Id. See also United States v. Diaz, 2024 WL 167166, *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2024); United States v. Estupinan, 2023 WL 9022718, *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2023); United States v. Galvan-Jacinto, 2023 WL 9007294, *2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 28, 2023).
It is important to recognize that a reduced number of criminal history points does not automatically yield a reduced term of imprisonment. The reason is that the criminal history category of VI encompasses criminal history points of 13 or more. Thus, no relief is available to a Defendant if the criminal history category remains at VI after the Defendant's points are reduced. See, e.g., United States v. Tiger, 223 F.3d 811, 812-13 (8th Cir. 2000) (relief unavailable if recalculating criminal history points results in same criminal history category). Accord, United States v. Vannortwick, 74 F.4th 1278, 1281 (10th Cir. 2023); United States v. LeFlore, 927 F.3d 472, 475 (7th Cir. 2019); United States v. Isaac, 655 F.3d 148, 158 (3d Cir. 2011).
Amendment 821 addresses in part the “status points” a defendant may have received because the offense was committed while under any “criminal justice sentence,” including imprisonment, probation, or supervised release. The provision reads as follows:
§ 4A1.1. Criminal History Category .
The total points from subsections (a) through (e) detennine the criminal history category in the Sentencing Table in Chapter Five, Part A.
(a) Add 3 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month.
(b) Add 2 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment of at least sixty days not counted in (a).
(c) Add 1 point for each prior sentence not counted in (a) or (b), up to a total of 4 points for this subsection.
(d) Add 1 point for each prior sentence resulting from a conviction of a crime of violence that did not receive any points under (a), (b), or (c) above because such sentence was treated as a single sentence, up to a total of 3 points for this subsection.
(e) Add 1 point if the defendant (1) receives 7 or more points under subsections (a) through (d), and (2) committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status.U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1.
Amendment 821 modified § 4Al.l(e) to reduce the points from 2 to 1 for a person who committed the offense while under a criminal justice sentence.
Because Defendant received 2 status points and now would receive only 1, the Court recognizes that the Amendment affects the number of points comprising his criminal history. However, the reduction of 21 points to 20 would not result in a change to Defendant's criminal history category of VI because 13 or more criminal history points place an individual in that category. U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A (Sentencing Table). Because Defendant's criminal history category remains VI, he is not entitled to relief pursuant to Amendment 821. Tiger, 223 F.3d at 812-13.
2. Release requested pursuant to Rule 35
This Court granted the motion filed in accordance with Rule 35. (Doc. 84, 85). The Government has indicated in its response that no additional reduction was understood to accompany its Rule 35 motion. The Government further cites to Defendant's acknowledgment at the trial in which he testified of the provisions of Rule 35 and its possible impact on him. (Doc. 99). The Court is satisfied that no additional reduction in sentence based on Rule 35 is warranted. Although the Court commends Defendant for his participation in substance abuse programs and employment while in prison, those factors are impermissible as the basis for additional sentence reductions. 18 U.S.C. § 3582.
Accordingly, Defendant's motion to reduce sentence, Doc. 88, and supplementary motion to reduce sentence, Doc. 91, are denied.