Summary
holding that a career offender who received a Rule 35 reduction was not entitled to a further reduction based on Amendment 782
Summary of this case from United States v. RamosOpinion
CRIMINAL NO. 3:11-375 (CMC)
05-02-2016
United States of America, v. Jerome Ralph Jay, Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court pursuant to Defendant's third pro se "Motion for Sentence Reduction." ECF No. 70. Defendant previously filed two motions to reduce sentence based on Amendment 782. ECF Nos. 63, 64. A Sentence Reduction Report ("SRR") was prepared and the court denied Defendant's motion based on that report, which stated that Amendment 782 did not apply, as it did not lower his guideline range. ECF No. 65. Relief under U.S.S.G. Amendment 782 was denied on July 20, 2015. Order, ECF No. 68. Defendant now moves again for reduction based on Amendment 782, arguing that he should receive the two-point reduction due to new case law. ECF No. 70.
Pursuant to United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 2010), "the clear intent of § 3582 is to constrain postjudgment sentence modifications . . . ." Section § 3582(c) "gives a district court one—and only one—opportunity to apply the retroactive amendments and modify the sentence." United States v. Mann, 435 F. App'x 254, 254 (2011) (citing Goodwyn, 596 F.3d at 236); see also United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain Defendant's third motion for relief under § 3582(c).
However, as noted in the Order denying his earlier motion for reconsideration, Defendant's request for relief under Amendment 782 fails on the merits. Defendant is classified as a career offender due to previous convictions. Therefore, the application of Amendment 782 does not lower his guideline range, which is driven by his career offender status rather than drug weight.
Defendant cites U.S. v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2015), which addresses reduction of mandatory minimum sentences under Amendment 782 after a Rule 35(b) motion is granted. While Defendant was granted a Rule 35 reduction, the previous Order denying relief under Amendment 782 was after the reduction in sentence and took that into account. Regardless, these authorities simply do not apply to Defendant's case as he was not sentenced based upon a statutorily required mandatory minimum sentence.
Therefore, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is dismissed as this court is without jurisdiction to consider it.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina
May 2, 2016