U.S. v. Hudson

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HORACE HUDSON, III

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

Date published: Aug 21, 2008

4:04-CR-00056-02-WRW (E.D. Ark. Aug. 21, 2008)

Opinion

4:04-CR-00056-02-WRW.

August 21, 2008

ORDER

WILLIAM WILSON JR., District Judge

Pending is Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence (Doc. No. 90). Defendant requests a reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based upon the retroactive application of the crack cocaine penalty reduction imposed by the United States Sentencing Commission, effective March 3, 2008. After reviewing the case, I find that Defendant is not entitled to a reduction of his sentence.

Not every person sentenced for a crack cocaine offense is eligible for a sentence reduction.¹ Only those persons currently serving a sentence determined or affected by a sentencing range calculated using the drug quantity table, U.S.S.C. § 2D1.1, are potentially eligible. If a defendant was not sentenced based on the drug quantity table, there is no basis for the Court to exercise its discretion to grant a sentence reduction.²

1 See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement) (March 3, 2008).

2 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1).

Defendant was sentenced to 595 months in prison on March 3, 2005.³ On January 29, 2008, Defendant's sentence was reduced to 240 months, ⁴ based on a Rule 35 motions where the parties agreed to the specific sentence of 240 months.⁵ Because Defendant's sentence was based on a specifically agreed-to sentence, rather than the drug quantity table, the crack cocaine amendment does not apply.⁶

3 Doc. Nos. 68, 69.

4 Doc. No. 79.

5 Doc. No. 77.

6 Although done under Rule 35, the agreement in this case was akin to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea — the parties agreed to a specific sentence. Courts have found that agreed-to sentences are not affected by the crack cocaine amendment and cannot be reduced under § 3582. See United States v. Bride, No. CR04-5350 RBL, 2008 WL 2782688 (W.D. Wash. July 14, 2008); United States v. Tindall, No. 3:04CR00031-2, 2008 WL 2518546 (W.D. Va. June 19, 2008); United States v. Clayborn, No. 1:CR-05-51-01, 2008 WL 2229531 (M.D. Pa. May 28, 2008); United States v. Gordon, 2008 WL 901911 (E.D. Okla. March 21, 2008).

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence (Doc. No. 90) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.