UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT RANISAVLJEVIC,

Defendant.

 /

Criminal Case No. 07-20618-2

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District

of Michigan on February 28, 2011.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On June 22, 2009, Defendant pleaded guilty to one of conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute and to distribute a controlled substance (ecstasy) in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). This Court sentenced Defendant on October 27, 2009, to a

term of imprisonment of sixty (60) months. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s

“Motion for Reduction of Sentence in Light of the November 1, 2010 Amendments to the

[United States Sentencing Guidelines],” filed December 8, 2010. The Government filed a

response to the motion on January 21, 2011.

In his motion, Defendant seeks a reduction in his sentence and cites 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) and two recently effective amendments to the United States Sentencing

2:07-cr-20618-PJD-MKM Doc # 29 Filed 02/28/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 88
2

Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) as the basis for the reduction. The recent amendments relate to

specific offender characteristics of age, mental, and emotional condition (Amendment

739) and cultural assimilation (Amendment 740). For the reasons that follow, these

amendments do not set forth a basis for a reduction of Defendant’s sentence.

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) sets forth three limited circumstances where a district court is

authorized to modify a defendant’s sentence. Beyond the circumstances enumerated in

the statute, the Court may not modify a term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). 

As relevant to the pending motion, subsection (c)(2) of the statute provides:

in 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.

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added).

U.S.S.G. section 1B1.10 sets forth the Sentencing Commission’s Policy Statement

with respect to reductions in a defendant’s term of imprisonment as a result of an

amendment to the Guidelines Manual. As relevant to Defendant’s motion, Section

1B1.10(a)(2)(A) explicitly provides: “A reduction in the defendant’s term of

imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if– . . . none of the amendments listed in subsection (c) is

2:07-cr-20618-PJD-MKM Doc # 29 Filed 02/28/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 89
3

applicable to the defendant.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(A). Neither of the amendments on

which Defendant relief are listed in subsection (c) of U.S.S.G. section 1B1.10. Therefore,

the amendments do not provide a basis for Defendant’s requested reduction in his

sentence and no other basis for reducing Defendant’s sentence can be found in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Defendant’s “Motion for Reduction of Sentence in Light

of the November 1, 2010 Amendments to the U.S.S.G. is DENIED.

PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Robert Ranisavljevic, #43031-039

CI NE Ohio Correctional Center

Correctional Institution

2240 Hubbard Rd.

Youngstown, OH 44501

AUSA Carl D. Gilmer-Hill

2:07-cr-20618-PJD-MKM Doc # 29 Filed 02/28/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 90