Opinion
3:92-cr-32 (JAM)
06-24-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AARON B. NORTHROP, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
Jeffrey Alker Meyer, United States District Judge
Aaron Northrop is serving a federal sentence of 600 months of imprisonment following his conviction for multiple federal crimes. See Northrop v. United States, 1998 WL 27120, at *1 (D. Conn. 1998). He has now filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) to reduce his sentence in light of a recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Last year the United States Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 821 to alter the rules for calculating the points that count toward a defendant's criminal history category. Amendment 821 eliminates so-called “status” points for certain defendants who committed their offense while subject to a prior criminal justice sentence (such as being on probation or parole or supervised released). See United States v. Major, 2024 WL 1404577, at *4 (2d Cir. 2024); United States v. Shields, 2024 WL 1932704, at *1 (D. Conn. 2024). The Commission made this amendment retroactive for the potential benefit of defendants who have been previously sentenced. Ibid.
When the Sentencing Commission makes a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, federal law allows a court to reduce a defendant's sentence if the defendant is now subject to “a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission” and “if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). As relevant here, the Sentencing Commission has issued a policy statement that generally allows for a sentence reduction but only if an application of the amendment would have resulted in a lower Sentencing Guidelines range than the range that applied at the defendant's sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1) & (b)(1); see also United States v. Zapatero, 961 F.3d 123, 127-28 (2d Cir. 2020) (explaining how a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines may allow for a sentence reduction only if the application of the amendment results in a lower guideline range).
According to Northrop's sentencing transcript, Northrop was subject to a final offense level of 41 and a criminal history category of III. This criminal history category was based on five criminal history points, two of which were “status” points based on Northrop's having committed his federal offense while on state probation. If these two status points are disregarded as Amendment 821 now instructs, Northrop would have three criminal history points, resulting in a lower criminal history category of II rather than a criminal history category of III.
Doc. #253-1 at 132.
PSR ¶ 210. The probation office and the government state that Judge Nevas did not ultimately apply these two status points at sentencing and that Judge Nevas determined Northrop to have a criminal history category of II. Doc. #246 at 2; Doc. #248 at 3-4. But the sentencing transcript reflects that Judge Nevas determined Northrop to have a criminal history category of III. Doc. #253-1 at 132. Similarly, the probation office and the government contend that Judge Nevas determined a final offense level of 42. Doc. #246 at 2; Doc. #248 at 4. By contrast, Northrop claims his final offense level was 40. Doc. #251 at 2. But the sentencing transcript reflects that Judge Nevas determined a final offense level of 41. Doc. #253-1 at 132.
Still, however, the problem for Northrop is that this lower criminal history category does not mean he should have been subject to a lower sentencing guidelines range. Regardless whether a defendant has a criminal history category of II or III, the sentencing guidelines range for a final offense level of 41 remains the same: 360 months to life imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 5(A) (Sentencing Table).
Accordingly, because application of Amendment 821 would not have lowered Northrop's sentencing guideline range, he is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion for sentence reduction (Doc. #247). The Court DENIES as moot Northrop's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #250) in light of the Court's denial of his motion for sentence reduction.
It is so ordered.