IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

:

v. : Crim. No. 05-193-11

:

FREDERICK MULLINEX :

O R D E R

After a three week trial in 2006, the jury convicted Defendant, Frederick Mullinex, of

conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, conspiracy to import controlled substances, 

conspiracy to introduce misbranded drugs into interstate commerce, conspiracy to commit 

money laundering, and promotional money laundering. (Doc. Nos. 288, 693.) At sentencing in 

December 2007, I determined that Defendant had a total offense level of 32, a criminal history 

category of I, and a guideline range of 121 to 151 months. (Doc. No. 1039.) I sentenced 

Defendant to 150 months imprisonment. (Id.) 

On November 1, 2014, Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines reduced the base 

offense level for most drug offenses and was made retroactive. Chief Judge Tucker established a 

Screening Committee in this District to review cases of defendants who may be eligible for 

Amendment 782 sentence reductions. (Doc. No. 1246.) On December 8, 2014, Defendant filed 

a pro se motion for appointment of counsel and for sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 

782. (Doc. No. 1241.) I referred Defendant’s case to the Screening Committee, which reports 

that the “parties agree that the amendment applies to this case, and that the defendant is eligible 

for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782.” (Doc. No. 

1246.) The Committee has submitted a proposed Order by which I would reduce Defendant’s 

sentence to 120 months imprisonment. (Id.) I will deny the proposed sentence reduction. 

United States v. Styer, 573 F.3d 151, 154 (3d Cir. 2009) (court may deny request for reduced 

Case 2:05-cr-00193-PD Document 1248 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 3
sentence without a hearing).

I “may reduce the term of imprisonment” after a defendant has been sentenced to a term 

of imprisonment “based on a sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered by the 

Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). I may reduce the term only “after 

considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent they are applicable” and “if such 

a reduction is consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission.” Id. 

I agree with the Committee that the Amendment applies to Defendant’s case and that he 

is eligible for a reduction. After considering the § 3553(a) factors, however, I conclude that a 

reduction is not warranted. As I have described in denying a sentence reduction for a codefendant, Mr. Mullinex Defendant participated in a massive international conspiracy to 

introduce prescription drugs and controlled substances into interstate commerce by selling drugs 

online to consumers without a prescription. (Crim. No. 05-193-7, Doc. No. 1254.) Defendant 

operated a number of websites that sold these drugs without a prescription to thousands of 

people. (Doc. No. 891 at 3.) Defendant used offshore credit card processors and sophisticated 

means to hide the source of his revenue. (Id.) The harm Defendant and his co-defendants 

caused to public health and safety was considerable. Moreover, Defendant’s activities were not 

those of a typical drug dealer. In these circumstances, the proposed sentence reduction would be 

inconsistent with, inter alia, the seriousness of Defendant’s crimes and the need to deter others 

from committing such crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Having considered all the factors set forth 

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), I will not reduce his 150 month term of imprisonment. 

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:05-cr-00193-PD Document 1248 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 3
AND NOW, this 5th day of May, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED that the proposed 

sentence reduction (Doc. No. 1243) and Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Appoint Counsel and

Reduce Sentence (Doc. No. 1241) are DENIED without prejudice as to Defendant’s right to 

move for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Paul S. Diamond

_________________________

Paul S. Diamond, J.

Page 3 of 3

Case 2:05-cr-00193-PD Document 1248 Filed 05/05/15 Page 3 of 3