Opinion
12-cr-00574-PJH-1
08-12-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DIONTE HOUFF, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION RE: DKT. NO. 586
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge.
Defendant in the above-captioned case has filed a pro se motion for a sentence reduction. See Dkt. 586. Although the motion does not expressly mention Amendment 821 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, it was referred under the court's Miscellaneous Order 2023.10.10 to the Federal Public Defender's Office. See Dkt. 589. The FPD filed a statement indicating that it “does not intend to assume representation” of defendant, though it “takes no position on his motion.” See Dkt. 589 at 1.
The government filed an opposition brief arguing that Amendment 821 is inapplicable to defendant. Amendment 821 reduced the number of “status points” that an individual receives for their criminal history, such that a person a person with 7 or more criminal history points now receives one additional “status point” (rather than two, under the pre-amendment Guidelines), while an individual with 6 or fewer criminal history points receives zero additional “status points.” See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). The Sentencing Commission has stated that this amendment applies retroactively. See, e.g., U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(e)(2), n. 7.
At sentencing, defendant received six points for his criminal history, plus two additional “status points” because he was under a criminal justice sentence at the time he committed the instant offense. See Dkt. 591 at 2 (citing Dkt. 317 at 19). Based on a total of eight criminal history points, defendant would have been in Criminal History Category IV - however, because defendant was classified as a “career offender,” his Criminal History Category was automatically VI. See Dkt. 591 at 2 (citing Dkt. 317 at 19).
Based on the arguments presented by the parties, and on the language of the amended Sentencing Guidelines itself, the court concludes that defendant is indeed ineligible for a sentence reduction. Accordingly, defendant's motion for sentence reduction is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.