Opinion
Criminal Action No. 96-049 Section "T" (4)
July 25, 2001
Before this Court is a Motion to Amend Sentence filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Gavin Allan Paul, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). The Court, having studied the legal memoranda and exhibits submitted by the parties, the record, and the applicable law, is fully advised on the premises and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
Petitioner Paul filed the instant motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2), seeking to have his sentence reduced in light of a recent Supreme Court decision. Section 3582(c)(2) provides that a "court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except . . . 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)." 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (C)(2). Furthermore, a court may reduce the term of imprisonment pursuant to Section 3582(c)(2), after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, only "if such a reduction is consistent-applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." Id.
In the instant motion, the Petitioner cites the recent Supreme Court case of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), as the basis for a reduction in his current sentence. "However, as evidenced by the clear and unambiguous language of Section 3582(c)(2), that statute is not designed to encompass sentencing challenges based upon court decisions. Rather, Section 3582(c)(2) is intended to allow courts to modify a term of imprisonment only if the sentencing range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994 (o) subsequent to the sentence being imposed upon the Defendant.
Furthermore, the Petitioner does not cite to any decision by the Sentencing Commission evidencing a decrease in the sentencing range applicable in his case. Rather, the Petitioner merely cites to Supreme Court case law. As stated earlier, a Motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) is not the proper vehicle for bringing challenges based on court decisions. Therefore, this Court finds no grounds in the instant motion upon which a valid Section 3582(c)(2) Motion can be based. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) (Doc. 105) be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.