IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRCT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION)

WILMONT BARNE A 10: 5U

P. HACr

1 TICT (L

:iJ DISTRICT ;i

VS

CASE NO. 2:O6-CR--169-WKW1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MOTION UNDER TITLE 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) & § 3553(a) AND OF

THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING GUIDELINES § 1B1.lO and 1B1.11

FOR THE REDUCTION OF SENTENCE BASED ON AMENDMENT 7O6,FOR TWO

LEVELS FOR COCAINE_BASE EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER l,2007,BECAME RETROACTIVE

MARCH 3,2008,.

Defendant, Wilmont Barnett,acting pro'se, respectfully requests

this Honorable Court to modify Defendant's sentence base offense

level to a level 24 pursuant to the November l,2007,reduction

of two levels for cocaine-base of the Upper Limit of Drug Quanity

Table; apply any upward or downward adjustments or departures; and

allow counsel to argue for a downward departure based on post-conviction

rehabilitation. In support thereof Defendant states:

1. On January 31,2008,the Defendant was sentenced at a level 34

category six(6) between the guideline range of 262-327 as a career

offender.

2. The Guideline base offense level on January 31,2008,under United

States sentencing Guideline 2D1.l(c),for at least 5grams of cocainebase but less than 20 grams of cocaine-base was a level 26,in which

the Defendant was accountable for was l4grams of crack at a level

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 647 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 1 of 4
26,categor.y six(6),between the range of 120 and 150 months. The

Defendant received a eight level enhancement under the career criminal

provision which was a level 34,he then received a three point reduction

under 3El.l(a)(b) which gave hime a abse offense level of 31 between the

range of 188-235.

3.Since the Defendant's sentencing ,the United States Sentencing

Guidelines have been amendmend to reduce the highest quantity base

offense level by two levels for coacine-base offenses,which came

into effect March 32008.pursuant to §lBl.lO,at a very minimum

Defendant's base offese level should be reduce to a level 24,even

though Defendant was a career offender he criminal history does

not call for the enhancement provision under 4Bl.l ,in which

this court has the authority to depart because the guideline

are nolonger manadatory but advisory,see Booker,128 S.CT.738

restrictions on the final sentence imposed,based upon the

guideline is inconsistent with the non-manadatory nature of

the guideline", see also UNITED STATES VS SANCHEZ,05-38l2(L)

"The courts mistaken conception that it lacked the authority

to depart from the career offender provision was an error of

law".

The Defendant ask the courts to depart from the career offender

provision under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a),which consistent with 18 U.S.C.

3582(c)(2),the court shall consider the factors set forth in

18 U.S.C. 3553(a),and to attempt to reinstate the mandatory

natuer of the career offender guidelines is unconstitutional

an in violation of BOOKER,543 U.S 26l,Booker,should still be

applicable to making a determination on the reduction of a sentence

under the Amendment applied to 18 u.S.C.3582(c)(2)motions,effecting

resentencing retoractive crack amendment for career offender,see

also UNITED STATES VS BOOKER l:00-CR-434-MHS DKT.44 llcir 2008,

"where the goverment acknowledge the defendant career offender

status but still did not oppc the two level reduction under

the new carck amendmnet 706".

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 647 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 2 of 4
Section 994(h)However,by it terms,is a direction to the sentencing

commission,not to the court and it finds no expresss analy in

Title 18 or 21, which 21 U.S.C. 841(b)expressly establish the

minimum and maximum prision terms that the court is allowed

to imposed for violation of 841(a),there is no statuory provision

instructing the court to sentence a career offender at or near

the statutory maximum. Under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(4)(A),it does

not instruct the court to impose such a sentenceor not for the

court to depart when the changes in the Guideline have occured

see generally UNITED STATES VS LABONTE, 520 U.S. 751,761 n.5

(1997).

Wherefore,it is respectfully requested this honorable court

reduce defendant sentence in accord with 3553(a),and in light

of UNITED STATES VS BOOKER,l25 S.CT.738,pursuant to amendment 706,

for cocaine-base two level reduction.

Res ectfully submitted,

WILMONT BARNETT 12129-002

UNITED STATES PENITENTARY

P.0.BOX 150160

ATLANTA,GA 30315

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 647 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 3 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing motion

has been forward to the

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE

P.O.BOX 197

MONTGOMERY AL,36l01

by placing the said document in the hands of the officals here

at U.S.P. Atlanta postage paid in full on this 6th day of June

2008.

submitted,

WILMONT BARNETT 12129-002

UNITED STATES PENITENTARY

P.0.BOX 150160

ATLANTA,GA 30315

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 647 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 4 of 4