Opinion
CR22-0097JLR
05-06-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN E. WILLIAMS, Defendant.
ORDER
JAMES L. ROBART, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the court is pro se Defendant Jonathan E. Williams's motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Mot. (Dkt. # 110).) Plaintiff the United States of America (the “Government”) opposes Mr. Williams's motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 113).) The court has considered Mr. Williams's motion, the parties' submissions in support of and in opposition to the motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court DENIES Mr. Williams's motion.
II. BACKGROUND
Mr. Williams is a 39-year-old inmate who is currently detained at Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) Sheridan. See Inmate Locator, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited May 3, 2024). Mr. Williams was arrested in 2022 after the United States Postal Inspection Service uncovered a dark web operation in which Mr. Williams and co-conspirators anonymously sold and mailed illicit substances to online purchasers for profit, including at least 19,963 grams of MDMA and 3.648 grams of LSD. (See Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) (Dkt. # 94 (sealed)) at 3-5.) Mr. Williams later pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. (Plea Agreement (Dkt. # 58) at 2.) He had no prior criminal history. (PSR at 7.)
The court sentenced Mr. Williams on July 11, 2023. (7/11/23 Min. Entry (Dkt. # 103).) Mr. Williams's “offense level was 29 and his guideline range was 87 to 108 months.” (Statement of Reasons (“SOR”) (Dkt. # 114) at 4.)But in anticipation of the forthcoming Amendment 821 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which took effect approximately four months after Mr. Williams's sentencing, the court “used a working guideline range of 70 to 87 months, giving [Mr. Williams] the benefit of the upcoming ‘true zero' criminal history offense level reduction.” (Id.) The court then sentenced Mr. Williams to 30 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release-a significant downward departure from the adjusted guideline range. (See 7/11/23 Min. Entry; Judgment (Dkt. # 104).)
The court notes that the Statement of Reasons had not previously been filed on the docket in this case. The court has filed it under seal for purposes of ruling on the instant motion.
Mr. Williams continues to serve this sentence, and his projected release date is July 4, 2025. See Inmate Locator, supra. On February 8, 2024, Mr. Williams filed a motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and Amendment 821, seeking a reduction of six months. (Mot. at 1-2.) The motion is now ripe for decision.
III. ANALYSIS
The court begins with the principle that a “judgment of conviction that includes [a sentence of imprisonment] constitutes a final judgment and may not be modified by a district court except in limited circumstances.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010) (internal quotations omitted). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) creates an exception to the general rule of finality, providing that
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) . . . the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). To qualify for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), two conditions must be met: (1) the defendant must have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has been lowered by a retroactively applicable guidelines amendment; and (2) the sentence reduction sought must be consistent with the Sentencing Commission's applicable policy statements. United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). The court lacks jurisdiction to grant a sentence reduction absent these two requirements. See United States v. Wessen, 583 F.3d 728, 730-31 (9th Cir. 2009).
Relevant here, Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines took effect November 1, 2023, and applies retroactively. See Sentencing Guidelines for the United States Courts, 88 Fed.Reg. 60534 (Sept. 1, 2023); Amendment 821, U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/amendment/821 (last visited May 3, 2024). “Part B, Subpart 1 of the amendment provides a two-level reduction in the offense level for certain zero-point offenders-that is, defendants with no criminal history whose offenses meet the guideline's criteria” (the “Zero-Point Offender Reduction”). United States v. Diaz-Diaz, No. CR19-0187JCC, 2023 WL 9040636, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2023); see also United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 4C1.1(a).
Mr. Williams had no criminal history when sentenced. (PSR at 7.) He now argues he is entitled to a reduction in sentence through the retroactive application of Amendment 821. (See generally Mot.) In imposing Mr. Williams's sentence, however, the court anticipated the forthcoming Amendment 821 and granted Mr. Williams the Zero-Point Offender Reduction to which he is now entitled. Because his sentence already accounts for the Zero-Point Offender Reduction, Mr. Williams did not receive a sentence “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” Waters, 771 F.3d at 680. He therefore fails to qualify for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Id.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Mr. Williams's motion (Dkt. # 110).