Opinion
No. 01 CR 35-1
September 6, 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER
James Parks ("Parks") has submitted a pro se filing captioned "Motion for Reduction of Sentence Based on Guideline Amendment Effective November 1, 2001 Concerning More Than Mimmal Planning Enhanoment [sic]," seeking to rely on the exception contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to the prohibition against post-sentencing modifications of criminal defendants' terms of imprisonment. For the reasons briefly stated here, Parks' motion is denied.
What Parks attempts to point to is the November 1, 2001 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that changed the earlier Guidelines' versions that had provided for a two-level increase in offense levels for certain crimes based on more than minimal planning. But that effort on Parks' part reflects a basic misunderstanding, for this Court expressly applied the November 1, 2001 Guidelines in calculating and imposing his sentence, just as the probation officer had done in preparing Parks' Presentence Investigation Report — and that calculation did not take any account of the previously-existing more-Than-minimal-planning provision. Instead Parks' offense level was determined this way:
Base offense level (Guideline § 2C1.1) 10
Addition because more than one bribe or extortion was involved (Guideline § 2C1.1(b)(1)) 2
Addition based on payments to influence an official holding a high-level decisionmaking position (Guideline § 2C1.1(b)(2)(B)) 8
Addition because Parks was an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor in criminal activity (Guideline § 3B1.1(c)) 2
Adjustied offense level 22
Less adjustments for acceptance of responsibility (Guideline §§ 3E1.1(a) and (b)(1)) 3
Total offense level 19 19
Because Parks has misunderstood the basis on which he was sentenced, his calculation of a lower Guideline range is equally mistaken. This Court's 30-month sentence was proper, and Parks' motion tor a reduction in this sentence is denied.