Opinion
8:18-CR-19
04-05-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TYLER PALMER, Defendant.
ORDER
JOHN M. GERRARD SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The defendant has filed a motion to reduce sentence (filing 47) based on U.S.S.G. § Amend. 817 and the statutory "safety valve," 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). That motion will be denied.
The defendant points out that Amendment 817 altered the eligibility for the "safety valve," U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, and also changed U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (a)(1) and (3), which set the base offense level for controlled substance offenses when the defendant has a prior conviction for a felony drug offense and death or serious bodily injury resulted from the offense of conviction. Filing 47. This, he says, makes him "eligible for the Sentence Reduction for the prior offences [sic] that trigger enhanced sentence for 21 USC 841(b)." Filing 47.
There are several problems with the defendant's argument. The first is that Amendment 817 was only effective on November 1, 2023, and wasn't made retroactive. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. The second is that nothing in Amendment 817 applies to the defendant. The defendant's base offense level was 26, and wasn't based on § 2D1.1(a)(1) or (3) because there's nothing to suggest his offense resulted in a serious bodily injury. See filing 38. And the defendant wouldn't be eligible for even the amended safety valve, for several reasons: He had 12 criminal history points (with only one 1-point offense), he had several prior 3-point offenses, he possessed a firearm in connection with the offense, and there's no evidence he provided information to the government. Filing 38 at 8-13; see also § 3553(f); Pulsifer v. United States, 144 S.Ct. 718 (2024). Finally, because the defendant isn't safety-valve eligible, there's no reducing his sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum he received. See filing 42; filing 43. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion to reduce sentence (filing 47) is denied.