JOINT MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE BASED ON 2014 

AMENDMENTS TO DRUG-QUANTITY SENTENCING GUIDELINES, 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582

CR06-5350RBL- 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

(206) 553-7970

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

District Judge Leighton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARLOS ROMALLIS DANIELS,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR06-5350RBL

JOINT MOTION TO REDUCE 

SENTENCE BASED ON 2014 

AMENDMENTS TO DRUGQUANTITY SENTENCING 

GUIDELINES, PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. § 3582

Note for Consideration on:

December 4, 2014

I. INTRODUCTION

The United States of America, by and through Annette L. Hayes, Acting United States 

Attorney for the Western District of Washington, and Sarah Y. Vogel, Assistant United 

States Attorney, and Defendant CARLOS ROMALLIS DANIELS, through Defendant’s 

counsel, Richard Troberman, submit this joint motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 to reduce 

Defendant’s sentence as a result of the retroactive application of 2014 amendments to the 

United States Sentencing Guidelines drug-quantity provisions.

The Sentencing Commission has provided a list of defendants sentenced in this 

District for drug-related offenses who are still serving their sentence in federal prisons. The 

Case 3:06-cr-05350-RBL Document 150 Filed 12/04/14 Page 1 of 7
JOINT MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE BASED ON 2014 

AMENDMENTS TO DRUG-QUANTITY SENTENCING GUIDELINES, 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582

CR06-5350RBL- 2

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

(206) 553-7970

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 has reviewed the file regarding this defendant, and believes he is eligible for a 

reduction. 

Specifically, the United States and Defendant, through counsel, agree that 

Defendant’s sentence should be reduced from the current term of 168 months to a reduced 

term of imprisonment of 135 months, for the reasons set forth below. The United States and 

Defendant, through counsel, request that the Court enter an Order imposing this reduced 

sentence, to take effect not earlier than November 1, 2015.

II. DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING REDUCTION

The parties agree on the following facts, which justify the requested reduction in 

sentence, under the authority of the 2014 amendments, outlined below.

Most Recent Judgment and Sentence:

Defendant’s Offense(s) of Conviction: Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine and 

Felon in Possession of a Firearm

Date Judgment was Entered: October 19, 2007

Total Offense Level as Determined by the Court: 33

Criminal History Category as Determined by the Court: III

Applicable Sentencing Range as Determined by the Court: 168-210 months

Sentence Imposed: 168 months

Proposed Judgment After Application of New Amendments:

New Total Offense Level after Application of 2014 Amendments: 31

New Sentencing Range: 135-168 months

Jointly Recommended New Sentence: 135 months

Additional Comments: None.

III. THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO AMEND SENTENCES PURSUANT TO 

THE 2014 SENTENCING GUIDELINES AMENDMENTS

A. Authority to Reduce a Sentence.

In Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, effective 

November 1, 2014, the Sentencing Commission lowered the penalties for most drug offenses 

Case 3:06-cr-05350-RBL Document 150 Filed 12/04/14 Page 2 of 7
JOINT MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE BASED ON 2014 

AMENDMENTS TO DRUG-QUANTITY SENTENCING GUIDELINES, 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582

CR06-5350RBL- 3

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

(206) 553-7970

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

by reducing most offense levels on the 2D1.1 Drug Quantity Table by two levels, and 

making related adjustments. 

In Amendment 788, the Commission decreed that Amendment 782 may be applied 

retroactively to lower the sentences of previously sentenced inmates. This authority derives 

from 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which 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.

In Section 1B1.10 of the Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission has identified the 

amendments which may be applied retroactively pursuant to this authority, and articulated 

the proper procedure for implementing the amendment in a concluded case. The version of 

Section 1B1.10 applicable to sentencing reductions under Amendment 782 is effective on 

November 1, 2014. Application note 8 (2014) provides: “the court shall use the version of 

this policy statement that is in effect on the date on which the court reduces the defendant’s 

term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” Section 1B1.10 provides: 

“In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment, and the guideline range 

applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to 

the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (d) below, the court may reduce the defendant’s 

term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). As required by 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2), any such reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment shall be consistent 

with this policy statement.” § 1B1.10(a)(1).

B. Procedure for Sentencing Reduction. 

A defendant is eligible for a sentencing reduction if Amendment 782 is applicable to 

the defendant and lowers the defendant’s previously calculated guideline range, and if the 

defendant did not previously receive a sentence at or below the bottom of the new guidelines 

Case 3:06-cr-05350-RBL Document 150 Filed 12/04/14 Page 3 of 7
JOINT MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE BASED ON 2014 

AMENDMENTS TO DRUG-QUANTITY SENTENCING GUIDELINES, 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582

CR06-5350RBL- 4

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

(206) 553-7970

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

range resulting from the application of Amendment 782 (other than due to substantial 

assistance). Even if the defendant is eligible, a district court has discretion to deny a 

reduction. Further, a proceeding under Section 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing 

proceeding, see USSG § 1B1.10(a)(3), and does not permit reconsideration of other 

sentencing determinations not altered by the guideline amendment.

In Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010), the Supreme Court addressed the 

process for application of a retroactive guideline amendment, emphasizing that Section 

1B1.10 is binding. The Court declared: “Any reduction must be consistent with applicable 

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. at 821. The Court required 

district courts to follow a two-step approach:

At step one, § 3582(c)(2) requires the court to follow the Commission’s 

instructions in § 1B1.10 to determine the prisoner’s eligibility for a sentence 

modification and the extent of the reduction authorized. Specifically, 

§ 1B1.10(b)(1) requires the court to begin by “determin[ing] the amended 

guideline range that would have been applicable to the defendant” had the 

relevant amendment been in effect at the time of the initial sentencing. “In 

making such determination, the court shall substitute only the amendments 

listed in subsection (c) for the corresponding guideline provisions that were 

applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline 

application decisions unaffected.” Ibid.

Consistent with the limited nature of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, § 1B1.10(b)(2) 

also confines the extent of the reduction authorized. Courts generally may “not 

reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . 

to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range” 

produced by the substitution. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A).

* * *

At step two of the inquiry, § 3582(c)(2) instructs a court to consider any 

applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the 

reduction authorized by reference to the policies relevant at step one is 

warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case. 

Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827. 

Case 3:06-cr-05350-RBL Document 150 Filed 12/04/14 Page 4 of 7
JOINT MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE BASED ON 2014 

AMENDMENTS TO DRUG-QUANTITY SENTENCING GUIDELINES, 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582

CR06-5350RBL- 5

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

(206) 553-7970

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

C. Timing: Not Eligible for Release Before November 1, 2015.

Section 1B1.10(e)(1), as added by Amendment 788 effective November 1, 2014, 

provides: “The court shall not order a reduced term of imprisonment based on Amendment 

782 unless the effective date of the court’s order is November 1, 2015, or later.” New 

application note 6 adds:

A reduction based on retroactive application of Amendment 782 that does not 

comply with the requirement that the order take effect on November 1, 2015, 

or later is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not 

authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Subsection (e)(1) does not preclude the court from conducting sentence reduction 

proceedings and entering orders under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement

before November 1, 2015, provided that any order reducing the defendant’s term of 

imprisonment has an effective date of November 1, 2015, or later.

IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the reasons outlined above, the United States and Defendant, through counsel, 

jointly request the Court to enter an “Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)” imposing the above-described reduced sentence, 

explicitly providing that such Order shall not be effective until November 1, 2015, or later. 

United States Probation has prepared a proposed Order, which is submitted with this joint 

motion.

//

//

//

Case 3:06-cr-05350-RBL Document 150 Filed 12/04/14 Page 5 of 7
JOINT MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE BASED ON 2014 

AMENDMENTS TO DRUG-QUANTITY SENTENCING GUIDELINES, 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582

CR06-5350RBL- 6

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

(206) 553-7970

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

V. CONCURRENCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL

The undersigned AUSA certifies that she has conveyed this joint motion to assigned 

counsel for Defendant, Richard Troberman, and that counsel agreed via email or via 

telephone call that he/she concurs in the motion and authorizes it to be filed as a joint 

motion.

Dated: December 3, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,

ANNETTE L. HAYES

Acting United States Attorney

/s/ Sarah Y. Vogel

SARAH Y. VOGEL

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

Phone: 206-553-7970

Fax: 206-553-4073

E-mail: Sarah.Vogel@usdoj.gov

Case 3:06-cr-05350-RBL Document 150 Filed 12/04/14 Page 6 of 7
JOINT MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE BASED ON 2014 

AMENDMENTS TO DRUG-QUANTITY SENTENCING GUIDELINES, 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582

CR06-5350RBL- 7

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

(206) 553-7970

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 4, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to 

the attorney(s) of record for the defendant(s). 

s/Karen Wolgamuth 

KAREN WOLGAMUTH

Paralegal

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

Phone: (206) 553-5050

FAX: (206) 553-4440

E-mail: karen.wolgamuth@usdoj.gov

Case 3:06-cr-05350-RBL Document 150 Filed 12/04/14 Page 7 of 7