1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

v. ) Criminal Action No. 06-59 Erie

)

)

SHANNON LAMONT MATHIS, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

McLAUGHLIN, SEAN J., J. 

Presently pending before the Court is a motion filed by Shannon Lamont Mathis

(“Defendant”) entitled “Motion For Reduction of Term of Imprisonment Amended Pursuant to

Title 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10/c Sentence Guidelines in Lieu of Amendment 706-

Crack Cocaine Offenses / USSG§1B1.10” [Doc. No. 144]. For the reasons set forth below, the

Defendant’s motion is denied. 

On October 10, 2006, Defendant was charged by indictment with possessing with intent

to distribute 5 grams or more of crack cocaine and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine.

See Indictment [Doc. No. 13]. On June 7, 2007, Defendant was convicted on both counts by a

jury following a four day trial. See Jury Verdict [Doc. No. 95]. At the sentencing hearing on

February 27, 2008, the Defendant’s offense level was increased by two levels for obstruction of

justice, and the Court granted the Government’s motion for an upward departure due to the

Defendant’s subornation of perjury and retaliation against witnesses. He was sentenced to 185

months of incarceration, followed by 8 years of supervised release. See Judgment [Doc. No.

130]. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, and on June 22, 2009, the Third Circuit

affirmed his conviction and sentence. See United States v. Mathis, 2009WL 1741510 (3 Cir. rd

2009). 

While Defendant’s direct appeal was pending, he filed the instant Motion for a reduction

of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) on June 26, 2008, in which he sought to

reduce his sentence due to a later amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines

(“U.S.S.G.”). See Motion [Doc. No. 144]. The Government has filed a Brief in opposition and

Case 1:06-cr-00059-DSC Document 162 Filed 11/02/09 Page 1 of 4
2

the matter is now ripe for our determination.

Defendant argues that he is eligible for a reduction in his sentence due to the adoption in

2007 of Amendment 706 by the United States Sentencing Commission, which retroactively

reduces by two points the offense level for persons sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) for

crack cocaine. See United States v. Robinson, 2008 WL 2578043 at *1 (W.D.Pa. 2008) (noting

that the crack amendment decreased the base offense levels applicable to specific weights of

cocaine base). Section 3582(c)(2) permits the reduction of a defendant’s sentence “where the

sentence was based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing

Commission.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). This reduction, however, is not authorized where

“the amendment ... is applicable to the defendant but the amendment does not have the effect of

lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline

or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment).” U.S.S.G. §

1B1.10, app. note 1(A). 

Here, Defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction. Defendant was sentenced after 

November 1, 2007, and the changes in the Amendment were expressly considered by the Court at

the time of sentencing. On September 5, 2007, Defendant requested, and this Court granted, a

continuance of his sentencing date until after the effective date of the November 1, 2007

amendments. See Motion to Continue Sentencing and Order [Doc. Nos. 100 and 101]. 

Defendant subsequently filed a Motion for Downward Departure on October 15, 2007, invoking

the application of Amendment 706 and requesting that the Court reduce his offense level by two

points in light of the Amendment. See Motion for Variance/Downward Departure [Doc. No.

125]. I rejected the Defendant’s argument at the sentencing hearing holding: 

The defendant has moved for a variance or downward

departure, arguing in part that there is an anomaly under the crack

cocaine guidelines such that his offense level should be 24, rather

than 26. However, regardless of whether the offense level is

calculated at 24, as suggested by the defendant, or 26, as calculated

by the probation officer, the fact of the matter is that the offense

level in this case does not determine the applicable guideline range. 

That’s determined by the mandatory minimum, which in this case

is 120 months. Section 5G1.1(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines

provide in pertinent part:

“Where a statutorily required minimum sentence is

greater than the maximum of the applicable

Case 1:06-cr-00059-DSC Document 162 Filed 11/02/09 Page 2 of 4
3

guideline range, the statutorily required minimum

sentence shall be the guideline sentence.”

The motion for variance is denied.

See Sentencing Tr. p. 9 [Doc. No. 139].

As I held at the time of the Defendant’s sentencing, because the Defendant was subject to

a mandatory minimum sentence required by statute, Amendment 706 did “not have the effect of

lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range”, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), and a

reduction of his sentence is not authorized. See United States v. Doe, 564 F.3d 305, 311-12 (3rd

Cir. 2009) (holding that although the defendant’s initial guideline ranges were lowered by

Amendment 706, they were subsumed by mandatory minimum sentences and were thus

unaffected by the Amendment); Sanchez-Cordero v. United States, 317 Fed. Appx. 267 (3 Cir. rd

2009) (holding that defendant was ineligible for any reduction because he was sentenced to a

statutory mandatory minimum); see also United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095-96 (9 Cir. th

2009) (holding that a defendant sentenced pursuant to a statutory mandatory minimum is not

entitled to a reduction of his sentence under Amendment 706); United States v. Williams, 551

F.3d 182, 185 (2 Cir. 2009) (“Once the mandatory minimum applied, [the defendant’s] sentence nd

was no longer ‘based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the

Sentencing Commission.”’); United States v. Poole, 550 F.3d 676, 679 (7 Cir. 2009) (“The th

Application Note confirms that Amendment 706 does not have the effect of lowering [the

defendant’s] guideline range because the range applicable to her by operation of law was the

statutory minimum term.”); United States v. Romero, 2009 WL 2983085 at *2 (W.D.Pa. 2009)

(rejecting defendant’s argument that he was entitled to a reduction because he was sentenced to a

mandatory minimum); United States v. Burton, 2009 WL 1765848 at *2 (W.D.Pa. 2009) (same). 

AND NOW, this 2 day of November, 2009, upon consideration of Shannon Lamont nd

Mathis’ “Motion For Reduction of Term of Imprisonment Amended Pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C.

3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10/c Sentence Guidelines in Lieu of Amendment 706-Crack Cocaine

Offenses / USSG§1B1.10” [Doc. No. 144], and for the reasons expressed herein;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. 

Case 1:06-cr-00059-DSC Document 162 Filed 11/02/09 Page 3 of 4
4

s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record. 

Case 1:06-cr-00059-DSC Document 162 Filed 11/02/09 Page 4 of 4