Opinion
Case No. 07-cr-00463-MJJ-1
03-22-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RAHSAAN ROLAND ROBINSON, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 42
On October 21, 2015, defendant Rahsaan Roland Robinson filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Dkt. No. 42.) On February 4, 2016, the Federal Public Defender filed a Notice of Non-Intervention. (Dkt. No. 44.) On February 9, 2016, the probation office prepared a sentence reduction investigation report concluding the defendant is not entitled to a reduction. (Dkt. No. 45.)
Having read and carefully considered the papers submitted, and for the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES defendant's motion.
"Under § 3582(c)(2), a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction if two prongs are satisfied: (1) the sentence is based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission and (2) such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." United States v. Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808, 810-11 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)) (internal quotations and citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
Defendant's motion for a reduction in sentence is premised upon Amendment 782 (which reduced by two the offense level for many drug trafficking offenses). The U.S. Sentencing Commission provided a November 1, 2014 effective date for the amendment, which was issued on July 18, 2014. U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines ("USSG") § 1B1.10(a)(1) provides that a defendant's sentence may be reduced where the applicable guideline range has been lowered as a result of an amendment.
The Court has reviewed the defendant's motion, the sentence reduction investigation report, and the underlying case file. Here, the defendant was sentenced on February 1, 2008 to 30 months in Bureau of Prisons custody, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. (Dkt. No. 33.) The Court is advised that defendant was released from custody on July 2, 2010 and placed under supervised release by the U.S. Probation Office in the Northern District of Texas. (Dkt. No. 45. at 2.) On September 2, 2013, having been found in violation of the terms of release, the defendant was sentenced to 12 months and one day in Bureau of Prisons custody, to run consecutively with various state sentences. (Id.) His current release date is apparently July 16, 2016 for those violations, not for his underlying sentence in the above-captioned case. (Id.)
The applicable Sentencing Commission Guidelines provide that "[i]n no event may the reduced term of imprisonment be less than the term of imprisonment the defendant has already served." USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(C); see also id. § 1B1.10 cmt. 7(a) ("This section does not authorize a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release."). Moreover, "the fact that a defendant may have served a longer term of imprisonment than the court determines would have been appropriate in view of the amended guideline range . . . shall not, without more, provide a basis for early termination of supervised release." Id. § 1B1.10 cmt. 7(b). Thus, the Court lacks authority to reduce the defendant's sentence as he is serving a term on different grounds. See United States v. Bravo, 362 F. App'x 456, 459 (6th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Germany, 529 F. App'x 853, 854 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for a sentencing reduction is DENiED.
This Order terminates Docket Number 42.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 22, 2016
/s/ _________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE