Opinion
Criminal Action No. 3:91-CR-355-G.
August 4, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the motion of the defendant Clarence Alton Reynolds ("Reynolds"), filed July 6, 2005, to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). For the reasons discussed below, Reynolds's motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 7, 1991, Reynolds was indicted and charged with violations under Title 21, including Conspiracy and Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana, as well as Title 18, including Money Laundering and Aiding and Abetting the commission of Title 18 and Title 21 offenses. Presentence Report ("PSR") ¶ 1. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Reynolds pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana and money laundering. Id. On March 31, 1992, Reynolds was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. See Judgment (entered Mar. 31, 1992).
II. ANALYSIS
The decision to reduce a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is within the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28 (5th Cir. 1994)). Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) provides that unless certain limited circumstances exist, a court may not modify a term of imprisonment once imposed. Specifically, a sentencing court may reduce a term of imprisonment "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . ., if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The applicable policy statement is U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, entitled "Retroactivity of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)," which provides:
Where a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment, and the guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (c) below, a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). If none of the amendments listed in subsection (c) is applicable, a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is not consistent with this policy statement and thus is not authorized.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a) (policy statement). Application note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 makes it clear that "[e]ligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment listed in subsection (c) [of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10] that lowers the applicable guideline range." Id., application note 1. Accordingly, construing this interplay between § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, the Fifth Circuit has held that "Section 3582(c)(2) applies only to amendments to the Guidelines that operate retroactively, as set forth in the Guidelines policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d)." Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1009 (citing United States v. Miller, 903 F.2d 341, 349 (5th Cir. 1990)). Thus, if an amendment is not specifically listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), a reduction of sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is not consistent with the Sentencing Commission's policy statement. See United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1113 (1995).
In this case, Reynolds argues that the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), struck down the mandatory application of the guidelines and thus, all guideline ranges have been "subsequently lowered" making the provisions of § 3582(c)(2) applicable. See Motion at 1-2. Nevertheless, there are no current guideline amendments that address the recent ruling in Booker, nor are there any amendments which will become effective on November 15, 2005. See U.S.S.G. Appendix C. Since there is no amendment specifically enumerated in this policy statement that can be applied retroactively, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), Reynolds is not eligible for a reduction in his sentence.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Reynolds's motion for a reduction in his sentence is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.