Source: http://ia.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150630_0001043.NIA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-16 15:06:50
Document Index: 695586004

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 994', '§ 3582', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3582', '§ 1', '§ 3582', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3582', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3582', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 3582', '§ 4', '§ 3582', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 3582', '§ 1', '§ 3582']

| United States v. Wilkinson
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,v.ROBERT SAMUEL WILKINSON, Defendant.
The United States Sentencing Commission recently revised the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("USSG") applicable to drug trafficking offenses by changing how the base offense levels in the drug quantity tables incorporate the statutory mandatory minimum penalties for such offenses. Specifically, Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) generally reduces by two levels the offense levels assigned to the quantities that trigger the statutory mandatory minimum penalties in USSG § 2D1.1 and made parallel changes to USSG § 2D1.11. Because Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) alters the threshold amounts in the drug quantity tables in USSG § 2D1.1 and USSG § 2D1.11, many, but not all, drug quantities will have a base offense level that is two levels lower than before Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)).
The United States Sentencing Commission promulgated USSG § 1.B1.10 to implement 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) and to provide guidance to a court when considering a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In relevant part, USSG § 1B1.10 states:
USSG § 1B1.10(a)(1); see also USSG § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1) ("Eligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment listed in subsection (d) that lowers the applicable guideline range...."). In addition to specifying which federal sentencing guidelines may be retroactively applied, USSG § 1B1.10 guides the court as to the amount by which a sentence may be reduced under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1).
On July 18, 2014, the United States Sentencing Commission unanimously voted to apply Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) retroactively to most drug trafficking offenses, and it set November 1, 2014 as the date that Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) would go into effect. Stated differently, Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) is included within subsection (d) of USSG § 1B1.10. Consequently, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG § 1B1.10, the court may rely on Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) to reduce a defendant's sentence. But, even if Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) is applicable, a special limiting instruction applies: "The court shall not order a reduced term of imprisonment based on Amendment 782 unless the effective date of the court's order is November 1, 2015, or later." USSG § 1B1.10(e)(1); see also Amendment 788 (amending USSG § 1B1.10).
Here, the court is unable to rely on Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) to reduce the defendant's sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG § 1B1.10. See generally United States v. Curry, 584 F.3d 1102, 1104 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing United States v. Wyatt, 115 F.3d 606, 608-09 (8th Cir. 1997)) (explaining requirements under USSG § 1B1.10(b)). Because the court sentenced the defendant as a career offender, see USSG § 4B1.1, Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) does not impact the defendant's guideline range. Therefore, a sentence reduction is not available to the defendant. See United States v. Reeves, 717 F.3d 647, 649-50 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing eligibility for a reduced sentence in light of career offender status); United States v. Harris, 688 F.3d 950, 953 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining current precedent for those sentenced under USSG § 4B1.1); United States v. Washington, 618 F.3d 869, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2010) (concluding that relief is unavailable where amendment does not have the effect of lowering the sentencing range); United States v. Collier, 581 F.3d 755, 758 (8th Cir. 2009) (reiterating that relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is not available to defendants who were sentenced under the career offender provisions of the sentencing guidelines); United States v. Clay, 524 F.3d 877, 878 (8th Cir. 2008) ("[A defendant] is... not eligible for a sentence reduction... [if] his sentencing range was determined by the career offender provision in USSG § 4B1.1."); United States v. Tingle, 524 F.3d 839, 840 (8th Cir. 2008) (concluding that the defendant could not rely on 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence because the defendant's status as a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1 determined the guideline range, rather than the amount of drugs under USSG § 2D1.1).
In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG § 1B1.10 is not justified. Accordingly, the court's own motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is denied. The clerk's office is directed to send a copy of this order to the defendant, the office of the Federal Public Defender, the office of the United States Attorney and the office of United States Probation.