UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Nos. 08-20487 & 08-20488

KIMANI HARDGE, Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

Defendant.

____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REDUCE A

SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

This matter presently is before the Court on Defendant Kimani Hardge’s motion

for a reduction of his sentence, filed December 27, 2011. The government filed a

response to the motion on February 17, 2012.

On February 5, 2009, Defendant pleaded guilty to (1) conspiracy to distribute

crack cocaine and to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine in Case No. 08-20487,

and (2) possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in Case No. 08-20477. This

Court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 180 months based on

Defendant’s status as a career offender. In his pending motion, Defendant contends that

he is entitled to a reduction of his sentence pursuant to recent amendments to the United

States Sentencing Guidelines, specifically Amendment 750, part A, which was made

retroactive by Amendment 759. Defendant further argues that his sentence should be

reduced because the Court no longer is bound by the career offender guidelines.

A district court is authorized to modify a defendant’s sentence only in those
2

instances where Congress by statute has granted it jurisdiction to do so. United States v.

Johnson, 564 F.3d 419, 421 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 318 (2009). In 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c), Congress provided that a court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it

has been imposed except in the limited circumstances set forth in the statute. United

States v. Williams, 607 F.3d 1123, 1125 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Smartt,

129 F.3d 539, 540 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582)). Those limited

circumstances are as follows: (1) where the Bureau of Prisons has requested the

modification based upon extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting a

reduction or the fact that the defendant is at least seventy years of age, has served at least

thirty years in prison and presents no danger to the safety of the community, see 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and (ii); (2) where modification is permitted under Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B); (3) where the guideline

range for the offense of conviction has been retroactively lowered, see 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(2); or (4) “to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute,” see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(B).

Defendant first relies on a retroactive amendment lowering the guideline range for

crack cocaine related convictions. The Court sentenced Defendant, however, pursuant to

the career offender guidelines. Therefore, Defendant is ineligible for a reduction of his

sentence based on Amendment 750. See United States v. Perdue, 572 F.3d 288, 293 (6th

Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1537 (2010) (holding that the district court did not err

in denying the defendant’s motion to reduce his sentence based on an amendment to the
3

crack cocaine guidelines, where the defendant was sentenced as a career offender). 

Defendant’s remaining argument in support of his request for a reduced sentence is

not within the limited circumstances where this Court is authorized to act.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion for a reduction of his sentence is

DENIED.

Date:March 9, 2012 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Kimani Hardge, #42972-039

FCI Allenwood Medium

Federal Correctional Institution

P.O. Box 2000

White Deer, PA 17887

AUSA Steven P. Cares