Opinion
No.: 2:16-CR-82-TAV-CRW-4
02-18-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTY NORRIS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This criminal case is before the Court on the defendant's pro se Motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) [Doc. 132] to which the government responded in opposition [Doc. 135].
In her motion, the defendant asks the Court to resentence her in light of Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 794, which clarifies the circumstances under which courts should grant a minor or minimal role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The Court notes that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) authorizes a sentence reduction consistent with the policy statements in the Sentencing Guidelines where a defendant has "been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission" via a retroactively applicable amendment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
In this case, the Sentencing Commission has not designated Amendment 794 as a retroactive amendment by listing it in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). Because § 1B1.10 is a policy statement, and because § 1B1.10(d) does not list Amendment 794 as a retroactive amendment, resentencing the defendant in light of Amendment 794 would not be consistent with the Sentencing Commission's policy statements. Thus, it is not warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Sprouse, No. 2:12-cr-122, 2017 WL 218376, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 18, 2017) (finding that a sentence reduction under Amendment 794 is not consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, and thus not available under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)).
The Court notes that the Sixth Circuit has held that Amendment 794 applies retroactively to cases on direct appeal to an appellate court. See United States v. Carter, No 15-3618, 2016 WL 5682707 (6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2016). However, the defendant's sentence in this case is already final, rendering Carter inapplicable.
Therefore, because resentencing the defendant pursuant to Amendment 794 would be inconsistent with the Sentencing Commission's policy statements, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize the Court to resentence the defendant. As such, the Court DENIES the defendant's motion [Doc. 132].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE