1 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION [Docket No. 70] 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

FREDERICK SELLERS. 

Crim. No. 10-434 (RMB) 

OPINION 

BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 This matter comes before the Court upon a motion for 

reduction of sentence filed by Frederick Sellers (“Defendant”) 

on February 24, 2016 [Docket No. 70]. Defendant seeks a 

reduction of his sentence by two levels pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582 and Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing 

Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”). 

I. BACKGROUND

 On November 12, 2010, Defendant was convicted after a jury 

trial of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to 

distribute five (5) kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 846 and contrary to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 

(b)(1)(A). Jury Verdict [Docket No. 49]. 

 At Defendant’s sentencing hearing on April 6, 2011, the 

Court found that Defendant’s Total Offense Level was 32 and that 

his Criminal History Category was III under the applicable 
2 

U.S.S.G. at the time. Sentencing Tr. at 32 [Docket No. 72-1]. 

Accordingly, the Court determined that Defendant’s Advisory 

Guideline range of imprisonment was 151 to 188 months. After 

hearing statements by Defendant’s counsel, Defendant, and the 

Government, the Court considered the nature of Defendant’s crime 

and his serious criminal history, including a murder conviction 

and parole violation, and sentenced Defendant to a prison term 

of 188 months, which was the top of then-applicable Advisory 

Guideline range. Sentencing Tr. at 45-50. On October 27, 2012, 

the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s 

judgment against the Defendant. See United States v. Sellers, 

501 F. App’x 194 (3d Cir. 2012). 

 On February 24, 2016, Defendant filed the instant motion 

for a retroactive sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2), arguing that his sentence should be reduced in 

light of the two-level drug offense reduction provided by 

Amendment 782 to the U.S.S.G. Specifically, Defendant requests 

that this Court reduce his sentence to 121 months imprisonment, 

which is the bottom of the amended Advisory Guideline range. 

The Government agrees that Defendant should be granted a 

sentence reduction, but opposes Defendant’s request for his 

sentence to be reduced to 121 months. The Government, instead, 

contends that the reduced sentence should be 151 months, which 

is the upper limit of the amended Advisory Guideline range. 
3 

Defendant and the Government agree that no hearing is necessary 

to resolve the instant motion. 

II. STANDARD

A district court may only modify a valid sentence if such 

authority is conferred by federal statute. Gregory v. 

Grondolsky, 2009 WL 2132430, at *3 (D.N.J. July 10, 2009) 

(citing United States v. Ross, 245 F.3d 577, 586 (6th Cir. 

2001)). Section 3582(c)(2) sets forth the analysis to be used 

in reducing an imposed term of imprisonment as a result of the 

Sentencing Commission’s reduction in the advisory guideline 

range pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o). Specifically, 

Section 3582(c)(2) states that a district court may, upon 

consideration of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), reduce a 

defendant’s sentence in light of a subsequent reduction in the 

applicable guideline range, if doing so is consistent with the 

applicable policy statements of the Sentencing Commission. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

 The Supreme Court has held that “[a]ny reduction must be 

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the 

Sentencing Commission,” including Section 1B1.10 of the 

U.S.S.G., which is a policy statement concerning reductions to a 

term of imprisonment as a result of an amendment to an advisory 

guideline range applicable to Section 3582(c)(2). Dillon v. 

United States, 560 U.S. 817, 821 (2010); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. 
4 

Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, eligibility for a sentence reduction 

requires that the amendment be applicable to the defendant and 

serve to lower the defendant’s previously calculated guideline 

range. Put differently, the defendant must not have previously 

received a sentence at or below the bottom of the now-amended 

range (other than due to substantial assistance). Additionally, 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 “instructs courts proceeding under 

§ 3582(c)(2) to substitute the amended Guidelines range while 

‘leav[ing] all other guideline application decisions 

unaffected.’” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 821 (quoting U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10). 

 Amendment 782 to the U.S.S.G., effective November 1, 2014, 

lowered the offense levels for most drug offenses on the 2D1.1 

Drug Quantity Table by two levels, including the offense for 

which Defendant was convicted. See U.S. v. Jones, 605 F. App’x 

81, 82 (3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Amendment 782 was enacted 

to reflect the Sentencing Commission’s determination that 

“setting the base offense levels slightly above the mandatory 

minimum penalties is no longer necessary to achieve its stated 

purpose,” as well as to address “the significant overcapacity 

and costs of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.” United States 

Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, Supp. App. C at 72, 73. 
5 

III. ANALYSIS

The Court must first determine whether Defendant is 

eligible for reduction of his sentence pursuant to 

Amendment 782. As Defendant was sentenced “based on a 

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the 

Sentencing Commission,” namely U.S.S.G. Section 2D1.1, Defendant 

is eligible for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 

Amendment 782, which reduced the offense levels assigned to most 

drug quantities under U.S.S.G. Section 2D1.1(c) by two. The 

Government does not dispute this. Govt. Br. at 7 [Docket 

No. 72]. This reduction lowers Defendant’s Total Offense Level 

from 32 to 30. His criminal history category remains III. His 

amended Advisory Guideline range of imprisonment is now 121 to 

151 months. 

After concluding that Defendant is eligible for a two-level 

reduction in his offense level, the Court must now determine 

whether a reduction in Defendant’s sentence is warranted and, if 

so, the extent of the reduction. See United States v. Styer, 

573 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 2009) (“The determination as to 

whether a reduction is warranted . . . is committed to the 

discretion of the district court.”). In exercising its 

discretion, the Court must “consider any applicable § 3553(a) 

factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction 

authorized by reference to the policies relevant at step one is 
6 

warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances 

of the case.” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827 (citing 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2)). The Commentary to Section 1B1.10, the policy 

statement implementing Section 3582(c)(2), directs courts to 

consider the relevant Section 3553(a) factors, public safety 

considerations, and a defendant’s post-sentencing conduct. 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. 1(B)(i)-(iii). For the following 

reasons, the Court finds that a reduction in Defendant’s 

sentence from 188 months to 151 months is warranted. 

A. Section 3553(a) Factors 

Section 3553(a) requires courts to consider the following 

factors in determining the particular sentence to be imposed: 

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history 

and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the 

sentence imposed (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, 

to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment 

for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal 

conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the 

defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed 

educational or vocational training, medical care, or other 

correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the 

kind of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentences and the 

sentencing range established for the applicable category of 

offense committed by the applicable category of defendant; 
7 

(5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing 

Commission; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence 

disparities among defendants with similar records who have been 

found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide 

restitution to any victims of the offense. 

The Court carefully considered each of the Section 3553(a) 

factors in rendering its original sentence. As for the first 

factor, the Court notes that Defendant was previously convicted 

for murder and served eight years in prison before being 

paroled. Once paroled, Defendant became involved in a 

sophisticated and organized drug trafficking business, which led 

to the conviction and imprisonment at issue. At his sentencing 

hearing, the Court characterized Defendant’s criminal record as 

“deplorable.” Sentencing Tr. 46:7. Defendant concedes that 

this is “a static factor.” Def. Reply Br. at 1 [Docket No. 73]. 

Any sentence imposed by this Court must reflect the 

seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and 

justly punish the Defendant. Defendant’s offense is serious. 

As the Court observed at Defendant’s sentencing hearing, 

Defendant was involved in a large, sophisticated, and organized 

drug trafficking business. The Court reiterates its earlier 

finding that “10 years isn’t enough” to justly punish the 

Defendant, but that a sentence within the applicable Guideline 

range will be. Sentencing Tr. 49:3-5. A sentence within the 
8 

applicable Guideline range will also promote respect for the law 

and deter future criminal conduct by the Defendant and others. 

A lesser sentence may be perceived as too lenient. 

Public safety is also promoted by a sentence within the 

applicable Guideline range. The large scale drug dealing in 

which Defendant was involved is inherently dangerous and 

injurious to the public safety. The Court once again finds that 

a sentence within the applicable Guideline range protects the 

public from further crimes by the Defendant. 

The Court has also considered the kind of sentences that 

are available, which include imprisonment. The Court has, of 

course, considered the amended Advisory Guideline range of 

imprisonment established for the category offense committed by 

this Defendant, which is 121 to 151 months. Additionally, the 

Court is cognizant of the need to avoid unwarranted sentence 

disparities among defendants with similar criminal records and 

finds that a sentence within the applicable Guideline range 

serves this need. 

The Court reiterates, as it stated during Defendant’s 

sentencing hearing, that it does not consider the need for 

treatment or training in imposing the term of imprisonment. 

This factor becomes relevant in the Court’s determination of the 

terms of supervised release. Finally, restitution is not at 

issue in this matter. 
9 

In sum, the Section 3553(a) factors support a reduction in 

Defendant’s sentence. However, given the seriousness of the 

offense committed by the Defendant, Defendant’s extensive 

criminal history, and the need for deterrence, both specific and 

general, and to promote respect for the law, the Court finds 

that a reduction from 188 months to 151 months, the top of the 

amended Advisory Guideline range, is appropriate. 

B. Public Safety Considerations 

The Court also considers “the nature and seriousness of the 

danger” to the public that may be posed by a reduction in 

Defendant’s sentence in determining whether a reduction is 

warranted and, if so, the extent of the reduction. U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10 cmt. 1(B)(i)-(iii). Defendant argues that his 

“likelihood of recidivism diminishes with each passing month,” 

citing research indicating that recidivism rates decline with 

age. Def. Motion at 9 [Docket No. 70]. This supports the 

Court’s conclusion that a reduction is warranted, but does not 

persuade the Court that a sentence at the bottom of the amended 

Advisory Guideline range, as requested by Defendant, is 

appropriate in light of the Section 3553(a) factors. The Court 

remains convinced that, in light of Defendant’s criminal history 

and past recidivism upon early release from prison, a sentence 

at the top of the Guideline range is warranted. 
10 

C. Post-Sentencing Conduct 

The Court considers Defendant’s post-sentencing conduct as 

well in determining whether a sentence reduction is warranted 

and, if so, the extent of the reduction. Defendant was 

originally sentenced by this Court in April 2011. Since the 

imposition of his original sentence, Defendant has enrolled in 

college courses through the prison and is working in the 

prison’s food services department. BOP Progress Report at 5 

[Def. Motion Ex. B]. He has also been disciplined for fighting 

with another person in prison and for insolence to a staff 

member at the prison. BOP Progress Report at 3. The Court 

finds that the application of the sentence reduction, from 

188 months to 151 months, sufficiently recognizes Defendant’s 

post-sentencing conduct. 

IV. CONCLUSION

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants 

Defendant’s motion for a reduction of his sentence by two levels 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), in part. Defendant’s term 

of imprisonment shall be reduced from 188 months to 151 months. 

An appropriate Order shall issue. 

s/Renée Marie Bumb 

RENÉE MARIE BUMB 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: July 6, 2017