UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-034-01-PB

 

Quenta Parker

O R D E R

The defendant, Quenta Parker, moves for a sentence reduction

based upon the cocaine base ("crack cocaine") amendments to the

Federal Sentencing Guidelines implementing the Fair Sentencing

Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010) ("2010

Fair Sentencing Act") (doc. no. 138). Because there is no

reasonable probability that the defendant is entitled to a

sentence reduction based on this retroactive amendment, his

request for counsel is DENIED. 

On August 3, 2010, Congress enacted the 2010 Fair Sentencing

Act to restore fairness to crack cocaine sentences. 

Specifically, the Fair Sentencing Act increased the threshold

quantity of crack cocaine for certain base offense levels listed

in the Drug Quantity Table in §2D1.1, eliminated the mandatory

minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, and

directed the United States Sentencing Commission ("Commission")

to review and amend the sentencing guidelines to account for

specified aggravating and mitigating circumstances in certain

drug cases.
Pursuant to the directive in the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act,

the Commission promulgated a temporary, emergency amendment

implementing the Act effective November 1, 2010. See United

States Sentencing Commission, Supplement to the 2010 Guidelines

Manual (Nov. 1, 2010). On April 6, 2011, the Commission repromulgated as permanent the temporary, emergency amendment and,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §994(p), submitted Amendment 750 for

congressional review on April 28, 2011.

On June 30, 2011, the Commission voted to add Parts A and C

of Amendment 750 to §1B1.10(c), which identifies those amendments

to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that may be considered for

retroactive application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §994(u). Part A

amended the Drug Quantity Table in §2D1.1 for crack cocaine

offenses and made related revisions to Application Note 10 to

§2D1.1. Part C deleted the cross reference in §2D2.1(b) under

which an offender who possessed more than five (5) grams of crack

cocaine was sentenced under §2D1.1. On November 1, 2011, the

amendment to §1B1.10 took effect, at which time reductions in

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the

retroactive application of Parts A and C of Amendment 750 were

authorized. 

In this case, the defendant is not eligible to seek a

reduced sentence under the retroactively applicable amendment.

On October 3, 2006, the defendant pled guilty to one (1)

count of Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine Base "Crack," in

2
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii) and 846, one

(1) count of Possession with Intent to Distribute, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii), and one (1) count

of Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking

Crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 924 (c)(1)(A). Although his

base offense level was 34, the parties agreed to a 2 point

enhancement for his role in the offense and 3 point adjustment

for acceptance of responsibility. As a result, the defendant's

total offense level was determined to be 33 and his guideline

sentencing range was 135 to 168 months on counts one (1) and two

(2), plus a 60 month consecutive sentence on count three (3). 

Although the defendant was subject to a ten (10) year mandatory

minimum sentence, the court imposed a higher sentence of 195

months (135 months on counts 1 and 2, to be served concurrently,

and 60 months on count 3, to be served consecutively). The court

also imposed five years of supervised release on counts 1 and 2,

and 3 years on count 3, to be served concurrently. 

On this record, the defendant is plainly not entitled to a

sentence reduction based on a retroactive application of the 2010

Fair Sentencing Act amendment (Amendments 750, Parts A and C). 

Because the defendant's offense involved greater than 1,000 grams

of cocaine base ("crack"), his base offense level of 34 remains

unchanged by the amendment. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(3). Thus, he is

not entitled to a reduction of his sentence under the 2010 Fair

Sentencing Act. Because it would be futile and an unnecessary

3
expenditure of taxpayer monies to appoint counsel to pursue a

sentence reduction on his behalf, the defendant's motion to

appoint counsel (document no. 138) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Date: February 28, 2012 ________________________________

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Quenta Parker, pro se

4