From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Jordan

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Harrisonburg Division
Apr 7, 2008
Criminal Action No. 5:06CR00059-001 (W.D. Va. Apr. 7, 2008)

Opinion

Criminal Action No. 5:06CR00059-001.

April 7, 2008


MEMORANDUM OPINION


This case is presently before the court on the issue of whether the defendant should receive a reduction in sentence pursuant to the United States Sentencing Commission's retroactive application of the amended guidelines pertaining to crack cocaine. For the following reasons, the court finds no viable reason why the defendant should not benefit from the amended guidelines.

On March 23, 2007, the defendant, Jason Carlos Jordan, pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and two counts of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The defendant was sentenced on August 8, 2007. Under the advisory sentencing guidelines, the defendant had a total offense level of 21 and a criminal history category of I, resulting in a guideline range of imprisonment of 37 to 46 months, plus 360 months on the two § 924(c) counts. The defendant was ultimately sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 397 months.

Pursuant to its statutory authority, the Sentencing Commission amended the sentencing guidelines applicable to criminal cases involving crack cocaine, or cocaine base, effective November 1, 2007. Specifically, the Sentencing Commission amended the drug quantity table set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), such that the base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses were generally lowered by two levels. On December 11, 2007, the Sentencing Commission further decided that, effective March 3, 2008, the amended guideline provisions will apply retroactively to offenders who were sentenced under prior versions of the sentencing guidelines, and who are still incarcerated. Stated generally, the practical effect of the Sentencing Commission's actions is that certain federal defendants convicted of offenses involving crack cocaine may be eligible for a reduction in their current sentences, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Under the amended guidelines, the defendant has a total offense level of 19, resulting in a guideline range of imprisonment of 30 to 37 months, plus 360 months on the two § 924(c) counts. On February 22, 2008, the court notified the parties that the court proposed to reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment from 37 months, plus 360 months on the § 924(c) counts, to 30 months, plus 360 months on the § 924(c) counts. The government subsequently objected to the proposed sentence reduction, and the defendant has now filed a response. For the reasons that follow, the court will overrule the government's objection and effect the proposed reduction in the defendant's sentence.

The government objects to the proposed reduction on the basis that the defendant distributed crack cocaine, and that he possessed firearms in relation to the charged crack cocaine offenses. However, the defendant's offense conduct was fully considered by the court at the time the defendant was originally sentenced. Consequently, the court is unable to find that the defendant's offense conduct should now prevent the defendant from benefitting from the amended guidelines.

The court notes that in sentencing this defendant, the court relied heavily on the advisory guidelines in establishing a starting point for determining a fair and just sentence. In the court's view, the amendments to the guidelines pertaining to crack cocaine represent a change in the fundamental philosophy and statistical assessment upon which the advisory guidelines are premised. In accord with this change in philosophy, and having considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (2007 Supp.), the court will reduce the defendant's sentence to a total term of imprisonment of 390 months, which consists of 30 months on the drug count and a mandatory 360 months on the two § 924(c) counts. All other terms of the original sentence will remain the same.

The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of this memorandum opinion and the accompanying order to the defendant and all counsel of record. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Western Virginia DVAW506CR000059-001 12178-084 08/14/2007 William Eldridge, Esq. Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 18 U.S.C. § 3582 28 U.S.C. § 994 IT IS ORDERED 397 is reduced to 390 months I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE 21 19 I I 37 46 30 37 II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 08/14/2007 IT IS SO ORDERED. 04/07/2008 04/17/2008 Hon. Glen E. Conrad, United States District Judge

for the District of United States of America ) v. ) JASON CARLOS JORDAN ) Case No: ) USM No: Date of Previous Judgment: ) (Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) ) Defendant's Attorney Upon motion of the defendant the Director of the Bureau of Prisons the court under (c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to (u), and having considered such motion, that the motion is: DENIED. GRANTED and the defendant's previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in the last judgment issued) of months . (Prior to Any Departures) Previous Offense Level: Amended Offense Level: Criminal History Category: Criminal History Category: Previous Guideline Range: to months Amended Guideline Range: to months The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range. The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the amended guideline range. Other (explain): The original sentence consisted of 37 months plus a mandatory 360 months consecutive on two 924(c) counts for a total term of imprisonment of 397 months. The new sentence consists of 30 months plus a mandatory 360 months consecutive on two 924(c) counts for a total term of imprisonment of 390 months. See Attached Memorandum Opinion Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect. Order Date: ___________________________________ Judge's signature Effective Date: (if different from order date) Printed name and title


Summaries of

U.S. v. Jordan

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Harrisonburg Division
Apr 7, 2008
Criminal Action No. 5:06CR00059-001 (W.D. Va. Apr. 7, 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Jordan

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JASON CARLOS JORDAN, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Harrisonburg Division

Date published: Apr 7, 2008

Citations

Criminal Action No. 5:06CR00059-001 (W.D. Va. Apr. 7, 2008)