Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:98cr52-RH

KEVIN LAMAR ENZOR,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE

SENTENCE UNDER AMENDMENT 706

United States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 706 allows a court to

reduce a defendant’s sentence under specific circumstances. Defendant Kevin

Lamar Enzor has moved for a sentence reduction. Mr. Enzor’s guideline range was

determined under the career offender provisions, not based on the crack cocaine

guidelines that were revised by Amendment 706. Mr. Enzor thus is not eligible for

a reduction. This order denies relief. 

I

The Sentencing Guidelines establish a guideline range for each defendant. 

The range is based on the defendant’s “total offense level” and “criminal history

category.” The total offense level is based on the defendant’s “base offense level”

Case 4:98-cr-00052-RH Document 26 Filed 08/25/08 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6

Case No: 4:98cr52-RH

with increases or decreases based on specific offense characteristics. For drug

offenses, the base offense level ordinarily turns on the type and quantity of drugs

properly attributed to the defendant. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2D1.1 (2007) (hereafter cited as “Guidelines Manual”). For a defendant who is a

“career offender,” however, the base offense level is the greater of the drug offense

level or a separate career offender offense level. See Guidelines Manual

§ 4B1.1(b).

On May 1, 2007, the United States Sentencing Commission adopted

Amendment 706. The amendment reduces the crack cocaine base offense level. In

most circumstances, the amount of the reduction is two levels. The amendment

does not, however, affect the separate career offender base offense level.

Congress did not act to block the amendment. The amendment thus became

effective on November 1, 2007. The amendment applies to sentences imposed on

or after that date.

II

When the Sentencing Commission adopts an amendment reducing a

guideline range, the Commission has express statutory authority—indeed, it may

even have a statutory duty—to determine whether and under what circumstances

courts will be allowed to apply the amendment retroactively to sentences imposed

prior to the amendment’s effective date. The statute provides:

Case 4:98-cr-00052-RH Document 26 Filed 08/25/08 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6

Case No: 4:98cr52-RH

If the Commission reduces the term of imprisonment recommended in

the guidelines applicable to a particular offense or category of

offenses, it shall specify in what circumstances and by what amount

the sentences of prisoners serving terms of imprisonment for the

offense may be reduced.

28 U.S.C. § 994(u).

 

When the Commission determines that an amendment may be applied

retroactively, a court may reduce a sentence, but only under the circumstances and

to the extent specified by the Commission. The court may act on its own motion or

on motion of a defendant or the Bureau of Prisons. The statute that authorizes a

sentence reduction provides:

[I]n 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),

upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,

or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment,

after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent

that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). 

By its plain terms, the statute allows a reduction only when a defendant has

been sentenced “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered

by the Sentencing Commission.” For a defendant sentenced based on the career

offender guidelines—not based on the crack guidelines that were changed by

Amendment 706—this means that no reduction is authorized.

Case 4:98-cr-00052-RH Document 26 Filed 08/25/08 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6

Case No: 4:98cr52-RH

The “applicable policy statements issued by the Commission,” within the

meaning of § 3582(c)(2), are set forth in Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10. Acting

under its § 994(u) authority, on December 11, 2007, the Commission amended

Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 to include Amendment 706 in the list of retroactive

amendments, effective as of March 3, 2008. But § 1B1.10 confirms what the

statute makes clear: a court may reduce a defendant’s sentence only if “the

guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered” by a

retroactive amendment. Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(1) (emphasis added). 

III

Mr. Enzor was sentenced on December 21, 1998. Under Guidelines Manual

§ 2D1.1 the base offense level for the type and quantity of drugs for which Mr.

Enzor was responsible was 28. Under Amendment 706, the base offense level for

that type and quantity of drugs is 26. Under the career offender

guideline—Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(b)(A)—Mr. Enzor’s base offense level was

(and is) 34. Thus Mr. Enzor’s base offense level after adoption of Amendment

706, as before, is 34. After adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, Mr.

Enzor’s total offense level is 31, his criminal history category is VI, and his

guideline range is 188 to 235 months. The minimum mandatory was five years. 

I sentenced Mr. Enzor to 204 months, below the mid-point of the range. I

later reduced the sentence to 168 months, a downward departure from the guideline

Case 4:98-cr-00052-RH Document 26 Filed 08/25/08 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6

Case No: 4:98cr52-RH

range, based on the government’s post-sentencing substantial assistance motion. 

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). Mr. Enzor is not eligible for a further reduction under

Amendment 706.

IV

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant Kevin Lamar Enzor’s motion to reduce sentence under United

States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 706 (document 23) is DENIED.

2. The clerk must provide a copy of this order to Mr. Enzor himself by mail

and to the attorneys of record and the Federal Public Defender through the

electronic filing system.

3. If the government asserts that the presentence report ought not be made

available to the Federal Public Defender (for his consideration of whether to seek

appointment or take further action) the government must file a notice so indicating

by October 9, 2008. If the government files no notice, then without further order

the probation department may provide a copy of the presentence report to the

Federal Public Defender, subject to the same restrictions on copying and 

Case 4:98-cr-00052-RH Document 26 Filed 08/25/08 Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6

Case No: 4:98cr52-RH

disclosure as routinely attend the initial disclosure of a presentence report. 

SO ORDERED on August 25, 2008.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:98-cr-00052-RH Document 26 Filed 08/25/08 Page 6 of 6