1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff,
v. Criminal Action N o. 07-153-17 (TFH)
RONALD COOK , Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
INTRODUCTION Defendant is currently serving a 162-month prison term imposed on March 23, 2009, pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. Pending before t he Court is defendant’s motion to reduce his sentence pursua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Def’s M ot. to Reduce Sentence, Nov. 22, 2016, ECF No. 985 (“Def.’s Mot.”). Upon consideration of the pa rties’ submissions, the record in this case and the applicable law, defendant’s motion will be DENIED.
BACKGROUND On October 3, 2008, defendant pled guilty to one count of consp iracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribu te more than one kilogram or mor e of phencyclidine and one kilogram or more of hero in in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 84 1(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 841(b)(1)(A)(i). Tr., Plea Hr’g B efore Judge Royce C. Lamberth, at 6-7, Oct. 3, 2008, ECF No. 964 (“Plea Hr’g Tr.”). During de fendant’s sentencing hearing, t he Court determined that defendant’s Guideline range pursuan t to the United States Sente ncing Guidelines was 168 to 210 months imprisonment. Tr., Sentencing Hr’g before Judge Thomas F . Hogan, at 10-11, Mar. 23,2 2009, ECF No. 969 (“Sentencing Hr’g Tr.”). The Court accepted t he parties’ plea agreement, departed from the Guidelines and sentenced the defendant to a 1 62-month prison term. Id . at 10-
11. Defendant now moves for a redu ction of his sentence pursuant t o 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), or, alternatively, for time serv ed. Def.’s Mot.; Def.’s Supp. t o Mot. to Reduce Sentence, at 1-2, Sept. 28, 2017, ECF 1027 (“Def.’s Supp.”). The government oppos es defendant’s motion, and contends that defendant 1) is not eligible for a reduction beca use the Court did not determine his sentence based on the Sentencing G uidelines, and 2) even if he is eligible for a sentence reduction, it is unwarranted. Gove rnment’s Opp’n to Mot. to Red uce Sentence, at 1, Dec. 20, 2016, ECF No. 994 (“Gov. Opp.”); Government’s Supp. Opp’n to Mo t. to Reduce Sentence, Sept. 28, 2017, ECF No. 1026.
ANALYSIS Courts are empowered by statute t o reduce a sentence where a de fendant “has been sentenced to a term of impris onment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing C ommission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). 1 In order to determine whether a sentence reduction is appropria te, courts must engage in a “two -step inquiry”: 1) they must determine the scope of a sente nce reduction, if any, under the amended Sentencing Guidelines, and 2) they must determine whet her a reduction is warranted bas ed on applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). A defendant may be eligible for a sentence reduc tion even if the sentence resul ted from a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, so long as the senten ce was “based on” a Guideline r ange that the Sentencing

1 On November 2014, the United States Sentencing Commission amend ed and lowered the base offense levels by two points for nearly all drug offenses. U.S. Sentenc ing Guidelines, Supplement to Appendix C, Amendment 782 (Nov. 1, 2014); see also Amendment 788 (allowing courts to retroactively reduce sentences after November 1, 2015).3 Commission has since lowered. See United States v. Epps , 707 F.3d 337, 351 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“3582(c)(2) relief is not invari ably barred when a sentence wa s imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(c) plea agreement.”); Fe d. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). “[ A] sentence is ‘based on’ a Guideline range ‘to whatever exte nt’ that range ‘was a relevant part of the analytical framework the judge used to determine the se ntence or to approve the agre ement.’” In re Sealed Case , 722 F.3d 361, 365 (D.C. Cir. 2013) quoting Freeman v. United States , 564 U.S. 522, 530 (2011) (plurality opinion). When a defendant is eligible for a reduced sentence, courts hav e discretion to determine whether and to what extent s uch a reduction is warranted. Dillon , 560 U.S. at 827. In making that determination, courts must consid er applicable factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (factors include the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant , the sentencing range establis hed by the Guidelines for the applicable category of the o ffense, and the need to avoid unwar ranted sentencing disparities). Courts “shall” also consider the “nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that may be posed by a r eduction in the defendant’s t erm of imprisonment,” and may also consider “post-sentencing c onduct of the defendant that oc curred after imposition of the term of imprisonment.” United S tates Sentencing Commission, Gui delines Manual, § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(ii); n.1(B)(iii) (U .S. Sentencing Comm’n 2016) (“U. S.S.G.”); Dillon , 560 U.S. at 821 (sentence reductions must be c onsistent with relevant polic y statements in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.10). The parties do not dispute that defendant would face a Guidelin e range of 135 to 168 months if he were sentenced t oday, a decrease from the 168 to 2 10-month Guideline range that4 he faced when he was sentenced in 2009. See Def. Mot., at 4; U.S.S.G ., Supplement to Appendix C, Amendment 782 (Nov. 1, 2014). However, the government contends t hat defendant is ineligible f or a sentence reduction because the Court sentenced defendant pursuant to a Rule 11(c)( 1)(C) plea agreement and did not rely on the Guidelines as “a re levant part of the analytic framework upon which this Court determined the defendant’s sen tence.” Gov. Opp. ¶ 7. The Court disagrees. In determining whether to accept the parties’ plea agreement, the Court ruled that the applicable Guideline range was 168 to 210 months, and noted that the plea “came out somewh at less . . . than the [G]uidelines[’] suggested minimum; more than the mandatory sent ence but less than the [G]uidelines call for.” Sent encing Hr’g Tr., at 11, 4. Despite “[c]om[ing] out to somewhat lower than the [G]uidelines,” the C ourt found the plea to be “a fair and appropriate . . . sentence for the nature of the activity in th[e] case,” and agreed to depart bel ow the Guideline range “[b]ecause of the plea agreement.” Id . at 10-11. Defendant’s sentence was based on the Guidelines, a nd defendant is eligible for a reduction in his sentence. See, e.g., Epps , 707 F.3d at 352 (court’s acceptance of plea agreement was “based on” the Guidelines wher e the court evaluated the sentence in light of the Guideli nes and calculated the Guidelin e range before granting a downward departure). Despite defendant’s eligibility, a sentence reduction is unwarr anted in this case. The first § 3553(a) factor, the “nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” strongly s upports this conclusion. 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(1). Defendant was amongst 25 other individuals ind icted for distributing phencycl idine (“PCP”) and heroin over a two-year period acros s the District of Columbia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and California. Factual Proffe r ¶ 5, Oct. 3, 2008, ECF No. 349 (“Pr offer”); Plea Hr’g Tr., at 6. He5 distributed both PCP and heroi n supplied to him by one of the l eaders of the conspiracy, Lonnell Glover, who was the subject of an e xtensive federal narcotics i nvestigation. Proffer ¶ 2. Defendant admitted that he was responsible for distributing or possessing with the intent to distribute over 10 kilograms of P CP. Plea Agreement ¶ 2, Oct. 3 , 2008, ECF No. 350 (“Plea Agreement”). At the time of hi s arrest, defendant possessed a “ loaded 9mm firearm, ammunition, body armor, numerous bottles of P CP, including 38 bottles that weighed approximately 5 kilograms, bottles used for selling PCP, $28,000 in United Stat es Currency, ziplocks, digital scales, and a mask and respirator. ” Proffer ¶ 6; Plea Agreement ¶ 2. Defendant’s active involvement in a potentially vio lent, drug distribution conspir acy weighs against a reduction in his sentence. Defendant’s mature age and crimi nal history at the time of his arrest also weigh against a sentence reduction. Defendant was not a young man during his in volvement in the two-year conspiracy—he was a mature a dult between the ages of 33 and 35. Presentence Investigation Report ¶ 5, Feb. 02, 2009, ECF No. 430. N or was this defendant’ s first foray into drug distribution. He had a prior c onviction for attempted possessio n with intent to distribute heroin when he was 23 years old, and served 15 months of supervised pr obation. Id . ¶ 42; see, e.g., United States v. Duvall , 209 F. Supp. 3d 125, 139 (D.D.C. 2016), aff’d No. 16-3093 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 27, 2017) (defendant’s mature age and his drug-related cr iminal history “sp[oke] directly to the sentencing goals expressed i n [18 U.S.C. §] 3 553(a)(1)-(2), and . . . [were] substantial enough to outweigh other, counterv ailing considerations.”). In contrast to the nature and cir cumstances of his crime, defen dant’s post-sentencing conduct weighs in favor of a re duced sentence. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 0 cmt. n.1(B)(iii). Defendant has participated in a variet y of coursework during his incarcer ation, including a 250-hour