Opinion
CASE NO. 1:01-CR-00474
02-11-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. DENZIL T. MOORE, Defendant.
ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 83]
:
Defendant Denzil T. Moore has filed a motion to reduce his term of imprisonment pursuant to Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The government opposes. For the following reasons, this Court DENIES the Defendant's motion.
Doc. 83.
Doc. 84. Moore has filed a reply. Doc. 85.
Moore pled guilty to one count of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base. At sentencing on September 3, 2002, the Court found that Moore was a career offender and that his offense level was higher than it would have been if he were not a career offender. The Court sentenced Moore to 262 months' imprisonment.
Doc. 24.
Doc. 30 at 6.
Id. at 16-17.
In general, district courts lack jurisdiction to modify a final judgment of conviction that includes a term of imprisonment. One limited exception comes from 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which permits reductions in imprisonment terms "in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) . . . ."
Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b) (2012)).
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012).
As is clear from the statutory text, for a Guidelines amendment to trigger the § 3582(c)(2) exception, the original term of imprisonment must have been "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission." The Sentencing Guidelines Manual repeats these limitations when it specifies that a Guidelines amendment does not justify a reduction in the term of imprisonment if it "does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range." This policy statement is binding on the Court.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 824-25.
Moore assets that Amendment 782, which the Sentencing Commission has made retroactive, lowers the offense level that should be used to compute his Guidelines range. That amendment reduces the offense level applicable to many drug crimes. It does not, however, alter the career offender provisions of the Guidelines.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d).
Because Moore's Guidelines range was based on the career offender provisions, Amendment 782 does not reduce his applicable Guidelines range. This conclusion is consistent with the Sixth Circuit's treatment of past Guidelines amendments that did not alter the Guidelines' career offender provisions.
See, e.g., United States v. Riley , 726 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2013).
--------
Because Moore's term of imprisonment was not based on a guidelines range lowered by Amendment 782, that amendment provides no basis to reduce his term of imprisonment. The Court thus DENIES Moore's motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: February 11, 2015
s/_ James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE