Opinion
CASE NO. 1:11-cr-00012-19
07-01-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFFS, v. EARL KING, DEFENDANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 23, 2015, defendant Earl King ("defendant" or "King") filed a pro se motion seeking a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Doc. No. 763 ["Mot."].) The government filed a response on April 7, 2015, opposing King's motion. (Doc. No. 784 ["Resp"].) For the reasons that follow, King's motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant entered a counseled plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, in which he was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). In exchange for his plea, and pursuant to a written plea agreement, the three other counts of the indictment in which defendant was charged were dismissed. (Doc. No. 482 ["Plea Ag."]; Doc. No. 523 ["Amended Judgment"] at PageID 2311.)
Based upon initial advisory guideline calculations, defendant's Base Level Offense under then-existing U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 was 24 and his Criminal History Category was VI. Because of defendant' s prior felony convictions, however, the defendant was classified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, with an offense level of 34 and a Criminal History Category VI. With a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, King's advisory imprisonment range became 188-235 months. On October 23, 2014, the Court sentenced defendant to a below-guideline term of imprisonment of 133 months, to run concurrently to two of his undischarged state court sentences. (Amended Judgment at PageID 2312.)
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendant now inquires as to whether he is eligible to have his sentence reduced pursuant to a retroactive amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines. He is not.
A. Amendment 782
The authority of the Court to resentence a defendant is limited by statute. United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743, 748-49 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Ross, 245 F.3d 577, 585 (6th Cir. 2001)). The sentencing court has no inherent authority to modify an otherwise valid sentence. United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693, 700 (6th Cir. 2009). Congress allows a district court to modify a term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) when the defendant "has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . ." Section 3582(c)(2) additionally states that the reduction must be "consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission."
The Sentencing Commission, on November 1, 2014, adopted Amendment 782 to the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, resulting in lower guideline ranges for most drug trafficking offenses. The amendment has been given retroactive effect.
Defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. Once a defendant is determined to be a career offender under § 4B1.1, if the career offender sentencing range is greater than the initial advisory guideline range, the career offender range controls. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). Here, the initial advisory calculation resulted in an offense level of 24. Once defendant was found to be a career offender, his offense level became 34, which was then reduced by three levels, to a level 31 for acceptance of responsibility. The Court then gave the defendant a below-guideline sentence of 133 months. Therefore, the Court ultimately calculated defendant's sentencing range based upon the increased offense level set forth in the career offender guidelines.
When a sentencing range is derived from § 4B1.1, and not the amended Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1, Amendment 782 is not applicable. See United States v. Thompson, 714 F.3d 946, 949 (6th Cir. 2013) (court held previous amendments to drug quantity table did not apply to lower sentence of career offender); see, e.g., United States v. Nicholson, No. 3:11-194, 2015 WL 403997, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2005) (defendant not eligible for sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because his sentencing range was determined by his career offender status). Since defendant was originally sentenced based on the career offender guideline range, properly reduced by this Court, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to modify his sentence.
III. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to reduce his sentence (Doc. No. 763) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 1, 2015
/s/_________
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE