IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ZODERICK DROSSON JACKSON, §

§

Petitioner, §

v. §

§ Criminal Action No. 3:05-CR-0076-L(01)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

Respondent. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is Petitioner Zoderick Drosson Jackson’s Motion to Reconsider Sentence

Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), filed January 20, 2012. For the reasons that follow,

the court denies Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(2). 

I. Background

On October 30, 2006, Petitioner Zoderick Drosson Jackson (“Petitioner” or “Jackson”) was

sentenced to 25 years (300 months) imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

and to distribute 50 grams or more of a controlled substance, cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 846. On April 7, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). On April 28, 2009, the court granted Petitioner’s motion and sentenced him to 238

months imprisonment, based on an amended guideline range of 262 to 327 months that was lowered

and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(u). 

 The court stated, “[a] sentence of 238 months ‘mirrors’ the original sentence in that it is 24 months

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1

 

 Case 3:05-cr-00076-L Document 178 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 683
lower than the low end of the revised guideline range, and the court determines that this sentence 

is reasonable and just.” 

On October 25, 2011, Petitioner again filed a Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). On January 9, 2012, the court granted Petitioner’s motion and sentenced him

to 180 months imprisonment, based on an amended guideline range of 168 to 210 months that was

lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission. 

Petitioner now moves the court to reconsider the sentence imposed in January and sentence

him to a term of imprisonment of 144 months or, alternatively, sentence him to 24 months lower

than his current sentence of 180 months to a term of 156 months. In support of his motion,

Petitioner relies on his demonstrated commitment to obtaining an education and his lack of

disciplinary history while incarcerated. 

Respondent United States of America (“Respondent” or the “government”), pursuant to this

court’s order of February 24, 2012, filed the Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to

Reconsider Sentence Reduction Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) on March 4, 2012. The government 

opposes Petitioner’s motion on two grounds. First, the government states that, pursuant to USSG

§ 1B1.10(b)(2), the court cannot reduce Petitioner’s term of imprisonment to a term that is less than

the minimum of the amended guideline range. Second, the government states that Petitioner is not

entitled to a further reduction of his sentence of imprisonment due to the public safety considerations

in USSG § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(ii)). 

II. Analysis

A court’s authority to modify a previously imposed sentence is narrow. See United States

v. Bridges, 116 F.3d 1110, 1112 (5th Cir. 1997) (recognizing that a district court’s authority to

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2

 

 Case 3:05-cr-00076-L Document 178 Filed 03/12/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID 684
correct or modify a sentence is limited to those specific circumstances enumerated by Congress in

18 U.S.C. § 3582(b)). Section 3582 permits a defendant to move, under certain circumstances, for

discretionary modification of his sentence if it was based on a sentencing range that the Sentencing

Commission later lowered. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105

F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir. 1997). 

“[T]he court must follow the instructions in the applicable policy statement, § 1B1.10(b),

to decide whether the prisoner is eligible for a sentence modification and the extent of the reduction

authorized.” United States v. Garcia, 655 F.3d 426, 430 (5th Cir. 2011). “Additionally, a court

is generally prohibited from reducing a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) ‘to a term that is less than the

minimum of the amended guideline range.’ Id. (quoting § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)). The 2010 Guideline

Amendments provided an exception if the original term of imprisonment imposed wasless than the

term of the imprisonment provided by the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of

sentencing. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (Nov.

2010). In this instance, a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range could be

applied. Id. The 2011 Guideline Amendments, however, allow for a reduction comparably lessthan

the amended guideline range only when the original term of imprisonment imposed was less that the

term of imprisonment provided by the applicable guideline range as a result of a government motion

to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities. United States Sentencing

Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (Nov. 2011). 

During Jackson’s original sentencing on October 30, 2006, the court held him responsible

for 191 grams of cocaine base. Pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1(c)(6), Petitioner’s conduct would now

result in a base offense level of 28. During his original sentencing, Jackson received a three-level

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3

 

 Case 3:05-cr-00076-L Document 178 Filed 03/12/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID 685
increase for his aggravating role and a two-level increase for possession of firearms, which results

in a total offense level of 33. Petitioner also received a three-level reduction for acceptance of

responsibility, which results in an adjusted offense level of 30. An offense level of 30 combined

with Jackson’s criminal history category of VI results in an amended guideline range of 168-210

months. Thus, the minimum sentence the court can impose pursuant to § 1B1.10 is 168 months. 

Accordingly, the court denies Petitioner’s request to reduce his term of imprisonment to 144

months or, alternatively, 156 months. 

Upon consideration of the amended guideline range; the factors for consideration enumerated

in USSG § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1 (B)); Petitioner’s criminal history; the facts cited by the court

during Petitioner’s original sentencing, namely, that Petitioner was held responsible for 191 grams

of cocaine base, had an aggravating role in the offense, continued criminal activity while a fugitive,

and gave false identification at capture; the court declines to further reduce Petitioner’s sentence. 

The court finds that the sentence of 180 months imposed on January 9, 2012, is within the amended

guideline range, and is fair, just, and reasonable under the circumstances. 

III. Conclusion

For the reasons herein stated, the court denies Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider Sentence

Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The clerk of this court shall provide a copy of this

memorandum opinion and order to the United States Marshals who shall then provide a copy to the

warden of the facility where Zoderick Drosson Jackson is currently confined. 

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 4

 

 Case 3:05-cr-00076-L Document 178 Filed 03/12/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID 686
It is so ordered this 12th day of March, 2012.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 5

 

 Case 3:05-cr-00076-L Document 178 Filed 03/12/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID 687