Opinion
Criminal Action No. 5:06CR00038-001.
April 8, 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 receive the benefit of the amendment.
On January 11, 2007, the defendant, Celeste Joseph, pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(l), and two counts of distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B). Under the advisory sentencing guidelines, the defendant had a total offense level of 38 and a criminal history category of I, resulting in a guideline range of imprisonment of 235 to 293 months. The defendant was ultimately sentenced to a 188-month term of imprisonment, after the government filed a motion for substantial assistance on his behalf.
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 crack cocaine quantities 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 36, resulting in a guideline range of imprisonment of 188 to 235 months. On February 20, 2008, the court notified the parties that the court proposed to reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment from 188 months to 150 months. 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 objections and effect the proposed reduction in the defendant's sentence.
The government makes two objections to the proposed reduction. The government contends that the defendant should not receive a reduction in his sentence because he participated in a significant crack cocaine distribution conspiracy which distributed more than 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base and the defendant has already received the benefit of a 47 month reduction in his sentence based upon the government's motion for substantial assistance. The court finds, however, that all of this conduct was known to the court at the time of sentencing and was fully taken into account when fashioning a proper sentence in this case. The court also notes that the defendant has requested a hearing to present post-sentencing evidence which he claims would be relevant to the court's consideration of the appropriate sentence reduction in his case. In this case, however, the court finds such a hearing unnecessary for lack of good cause shown.
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, as amended, the court will reduce the defendant's sentence to 150 months. 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. Western Virginia DVAW506CR00038-001 12120-084 04/24/2007 Darren Bostic, 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 188 is reduced to 150 months I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE 38 36 I I 235 293 188 235 II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 04/24/2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District of United States of America ) v. ) ) Case No: CELESTE JOSEPH ) 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): See Attached Memorandum Opinion. Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect. IT IS SO ORDERED. 04/08/2008 04/18/2008 Hon. Glen E. Conrad, United States District Judge Order Date: ___________________________________ Judge's signature Effective Date: (if different from order date) Printed name and title