**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 mo tion u nder 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 7 82 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 then

applicable sentencing range and do not weigh in favor of reducin g 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.
1 405 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 I V. 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, a s 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 3 3 and a criminal history cate gory of III
. Thurston was sentenced on October 29, 2010 t o 1 94 months of imprisonment. Thurston unsuccessfully appealed h is 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 f actors 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 f or many years, Thurston

was involved in hustling crack with many others in a neighborhood held hostage to violence and addiction. H is 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 s ubstantial evidence of Thurston’s repeated acts of violence and gun play was ver y troubling. Cf. , e.g. , Presentence Report, ECF No. 1401 at ¶¶ 38, 43, 46

- 48, 53, 57

- 59, 61. There wa s no charitable view of th at kind of behavior, and it deserve d 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 h istory 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 sent encing hearing

. The Court found a downward departure to a sentence of 1 94 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 current ly is serving a sentence within that very range; t hat is the same range within which I already sentenced him. H e has p resented no facts or arguments that support any different result. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Thurston’s Unopposed Motion to Reduc e Sentence [15 40 ] be, and hereby is, DENIED. SIGNED this 7 th day of April , 2015.

______________________ RICHARD W. ROBERTS Chief Judge