UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. ) Criminal Action No. 05-100-13 (RWR)

)

DESMOND THURSTON, )

)

Defendant. )

______________________________)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Defendant Desmond Thurston filed an unopposed motion under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) for a reduction of his sentence on two 

counts of distributing crack cocaine because the sentencing 

guidelines range upon which his sentence was based was later 

lowered by Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

(“U.S.S.G.”). Unopposed Motion to Reduce Sentence, ECF No. 1540

(“Mot.”) at 1-2. Because the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

that must be considered in deciding Thurston’s reduction motion 

were fully considered when Thurston was given his original 

sentence which reflected a downward departure from the thenapplicable sentencing range and do not weigh in favor of 

reducing Thurston’s sentence further, the motion will be denied.

A jury found Thurston guilty of two counts of unlawful 

distribution of less than 5 grams of crack cocaine in violation 
-2-

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). See Judgment, ECF No. 

1405 at 1. The applicable guidelines range for Thurston at the 

time of sentencing was 262 to 327 months of imprisonment from an 

offense level of 36 and a criminal history category of IV. Mot. 

at 1. Thurston’s range was based largely upon Thurston’s

responsibility for at least 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base as 

relevant conduct. Id. at 2. However, as I announced at 

sentencing, I departed downward from the applicable range to the 

range of 168 to 210 months represented by an offense level of 33

and a criminal history category of III. 

Thurston was sentenced on October 29, 2010 to 194 months of 

imprisonment. Thurston unsuccessfully appealed his sentence to 

the D.C. Circuit which held, among other things, that the 

sentence did not violate Thurston’s Sixth Amendment Rights. 

United States v. Jones, 744 F.3d 1362, 1370 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 

Now, Thurston seeks to have his sentence reduced since the crack 

cocaine sentencing penalties were lowered after he was 

sentenced.

Section 3582(c)(2) requires a court to consider factors 

identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Those factors include, among 

others, “the nature and circumstances of the offense,” “the 

history and characteristics of the defendant,” “the need for the 

sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to 

promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for 
-3-

the offense,” “the need for the sentence imposed to afford 

adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” and “the need to 

protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” See

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

At sentencing, I considered and discussed all of those 

factors and others. I explained that for many years, Thurston 

was involved in hustling crack with many others in a 

neighborhood held hostage to violence and addiction. His group

felt free to spread this poison and help keep people strung out. 

Thurston lined his own pockets off of their misery and lessened 

the lives of countless others. The substantial evidence of 

Thurston’s repeated acts of violence and gun play was very 

troubling. Cf., e.g., Presentence Report, ECF No. 1401 at 

¶¶ 38, 43, 46-48, 53, 57-59, 61. There was no charitable view 

of that kind of behavior, and it deserved substantial 

punishment. 

However, mitigating factors warranted a downward departure. 

The departure resulted from concerns about the gross disparity 

between the applicable sentencing range and the far lower range 

applicable solely to the two small amounts of crack the jury 

found that he had sold, concerns about how his applicable 

criminal history category of IV would be only III if sentencing 

had been held only one business day later when a lower 

guidelines calculation would take effect, and consideration of 
-4-

/s/

mitigating factors in his background and the delay he 

experienced in having his sentencing hearing. 

The Court found a downward departure to a sentence of 194

months of imprisonment to be fair and just after considering all 

§ 3553(a) factors. Thurston now seeks a sentence reduction to 

one within a range of 168 to 210 months. He currently is 

serving a sentence within that very range; that is the same 

range within which I already sentenced him. He has presented no 

facts or arguments that support any different result. 

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Thurston’s Unopposed Motion to Reduce Sentence 

[1540] be, and hereby is, DENIED.

SIGNED this 7th day of April, 2015.

______________________

RICHARD W. ROBERTS

Chief Judge