Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01764/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01764-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: Modification of Imprisonment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCO CORRADO,

Petitioner, 

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Criminal No. 08-CR-2018-L-1

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

MODIFICATION OF TERM OF

IMPRISONMENT PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(2)

[Doc. No. 106]

On August 8, 2011, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for Reduction of Sentence

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Petitioner’s motion is based upon amendments to the Federal

Sentencing Guidelines pertaining to the use of recency as a factor in the calculation of the criminal

history score which became effective November 1, 2010. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

DENIES Petitioner’s motion.

BACKGROUND

On April 3, 2009, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Distribute

Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Applying the advisory Guidelines in

effect at the time of Petitioner’s sentencing, the Court determined the advisory range was 121-151

months based on an offense level of 29 and a criminal history category of IV. After considering the

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court sentenced Petitioner to 135 months of imprisonment.

Case 3:11-cv-01764-L Document 2 Filed 08/12/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Petitioner incorrectly refers to the “recency” amendment as Amendment 472. However, the

amendment to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e) that was effective on November 1, 2010 was Amendment 742.

2

DISCUSSION

Petitioner now moves for a reduction of his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based

on Amendment 7421

 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Amendment 742 eliminated the “recency” points

assessed by U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). 

Petitioner is ineligible for a sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because the Sentencing

Commission has not given Amendment 742 retroactive effect. A court may reduce a defendant’s

sentence under § 3582(c)(2) if the sentence was based on a sentencing range that has been subsequently

amended by the Sentencing Commission. In determining whether a sentence should be modified under

§ 3582(c)(2), the court must follow a two-step approach. Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691

(2010). First, the court must determine that a reduction is consistent with the policy statements issued

by the Sentencing Commission in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id. Second, the court must consider whether the

authorized reduction is warranted according to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id.

Section 1B1.10 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines states “A reduction in the defendant’s term

of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if: (A) none of the amendments listed in subsection (c) is applicable to the

defendant; or (B) an amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the

defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2). Amendment 742 is not listed under

subsection (c). See U.S.S.G. §1B1.10(c). Therefore, this amendment cannot be applied retroactively. 

Accordingly, the Court does not have the authority to modify Petitioner’s sentence. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 12, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01764-L Document 2 Filed 08/12/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

COPIES TO: 

PETITIONER

U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Case 3:11-cv-01764-L Document 2 Filed 08/12/11 Page 3 of 3