IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 05-0263-WS

 )

REGINALD CARTER, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s Motion for Reduction of Sentence 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (doc. 93).

Effective November 1, 2014, the United States Sentencing Commission enacted 

Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. In general, and with certain 

exceptions, this Amendment (also known as the “2014 Drug Guidelines Amendment”) revises 

the guidelines applicable to drug trafficking offenses by reducing by two the base offense levels 

assigned to particular drug quantities. The Commission has deemed Amendment 782 to apply 

retroactively, subject to certain limitations.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), defendant, Reginald Carter, appears eligible for a

sentence reduction upon retroactive application of the 2014 Drug Guidelines Amendment. 

Indeed, U.S. Probation Office calculations prepared on March 31, 2015 (see doc. 95) reflect that 

Carter is eligible for a two-level reduction in his base offense level pursuant to Amendment 782, 

as a result of which his guideline range would fall to 97 to 121 months (rather than the 121 to 

151 months applied at his original sentencing hearing). If the Court were to impose a 

comparable high-end sentence, then Carter’s sentence would be reduced from 151 months to 121 

months.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is critically important to recognize that sentencing relief 

under § 3582(c)(2) is discretionary, not mandatory. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 

1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2009) (district court’s “decision whether to reduce the defendant’s 

sentence, and to what extent, remains discretionary”). In exercising that discretion, courts must 

consider the factors recited in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as well as “the nature and seriousness of the 

Case 1:05-cr-00263-WS-C Document 101 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 3
-2-

danger to any person or the community that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant’s term 

of imprisonment,” and “may consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant that occurred 

after imposition of the term of imprisonment.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, Application Note 1(B)(i)-

(iii); see also United States v. Smith, 568 F.3d 923, 928 (11th Cir. 2009) (after recalculating 

eligible defendant’s guideline range, “the district court must decide whether, in its discretion, to 

retain the original sentence or re-sentence the defendant under the amended guideline range after 

it has considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as well as public safety 

considerations, and ... the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct.”) (citations and internal 

quotation marks omitted).

Information furnished by the U.S. Probation Office concerning Carter’s post-sentencing 

conduct weighs heavily against his request for sentence reduction. In particular, the Probation 

Office reported that, between May 13, 2008 and June 8, 2014, Carter committed numerous

serious disciplinary infractions in prison, including (among many others) the following: engaging 

in sexual acts (five infractions), indecent exposure, gambling (two infractions), disruptive 

conduct, assaulting without serious injury (two infractions), threatening bodily harm, being 

insolent to a staff member (two infractions), and possessing a dangerous weapon. In deference 

to considerations of fairness and due process, “each party must be given notice and an 

opportunity to contest new information relied on by the district court in a § 3582(c)(2) 

proceeding.” United States v. Jules, 595 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2010). On that basis, the 

undersigned issued a Show Cause Order (doc. 96) on April 3, 2015. That Show Cause Order 

gave formal notice to Carter of the above-described prison disciplinary information and the 

Court’s intent to rely on same in adjudicating his pending § 3582(c)(2) Motion. The Show 

Cause Order further provided as follows:

“Should Carter wish to contest this information, he must file written objections 

with the Clerk of Court .... More generally, Carter is ordered to show cause ... 

why his Motion for Reduction of Sentence should not be denied based on his 

post-sentencing conduct and the concomitant concerns regarding public safety if 

his sentence were reduced.”

(Doc. 96, at 2.)

Carter has now filed his Response (doc. 100) to the April 3 Show Cause Order. In that 

Response, Carter acknowledges having committed the above-described disciplinary infractions 

and concedes that this is “reprehensible conduct” that “may bring about public safety concerns.” 

(Doc. 100, at 2.) Nonetheless, Carter urges the Court not to hold his prison discipline record 

Case 1:05-cr-00263-WS-C Document 101 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 3
-3-

against him in adjudicating his § 3582(c)(2) Motion because he has learned from his mistakes 

and is making sincere efforts to change his ways. With regard to his violent conduct in prison, 

Carter explains that he has had no such infractions in five years and has learned not to be 

combative with others in prison. With regard to certain of his sexual misconduct, Carter 

describes these acts as natural and/or unintentional. With regard to his gambling infractions, 

Carter indicates that he is “working on overcoming that vice.” (Doc. 100, at 4.) Carter also 

shows that, just nine days ago, he entered into a written Agreement to Participate in a Bureau of 

Prisons Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program. Finally, Carter submits a printout of the 

prison education courses in which he has participated over the last eight years.

The Court has carefully considered all of the information before it pertaining to the 

sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), public safety considerations, and Carter’s postsentencing conduct. The Court has given due consideration to Carter’s extensive and worrisome 

prison disciplinary record, his explanations and responses to same, and his limited evidence of 

positive involvement in prison programs. The Court has also considered the Government’s 

recommendation that this Court deny § 3582(c)(2) relief to Carter “in light of his atrocious 

prison disciplinary history,” which the Government construes as demonstrating “that Carter has 

not reformed his behavior” and that denial is warranted “to protect the public.” (Doc. 99, at 5-6.)

Upon consideration of all evidence and information before it relating to the § 3553(a) 

factors, public safety considerations, and Carter’s post-sentencing conduct, the undersigned 

exercises its discretion to retain the original sentence imposed in this case. This determination is

based on the Court’s assessment of the nature and seriousness of the danger to the community 

that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment. Accordingly, the 

Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (doc. 93) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 2015.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cr-00263-WS-C Document 101 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 3