Source: http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170807_0000964.ETN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-02-20 07:41:53
Document Index: 487361765

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 846', '§ 3582', '§ 2255', '§ 3582', '§ 2255', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3582', '§ 1']

NICHOLE E. BOYD, Defendant.
This criminal case is before the Court the defendant's pro se Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. 448]. In this motion, the defendant seeks a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 794 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) [Id. at pp. 1-2, 4]. The government has responded in opposition to this motion [Doc. 450].
On March 23, 2015, defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 84 months as a result of her guilty plea to conspiring to manufacture 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A) [Doc. 325]. She did not file a direct appeal of her conviction or sentence.
As an initial point, the Court notes that “the proper vehicle for an inmate to obtain a sentence reduction because of a change in the sentencing guidelines is 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), not 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Cook v. United States, Nos. 2:10-cr-26, 2:15-cv-212, 2016 WL 7321304, at *7 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 14, 2016) (Greer, J.). Therefore, the defendant should have made her request for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 794 by means of an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, not by a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
Amendment 794 took effect November 1, 2015, over seven months after defendant was sentenced, and clarifies the circumstances under which courts may grant a minor- or minimal-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The Sentencing Commission has not designated Amendment 794 as retroactive. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d). Because Amendment 794 does not apply retroactively, § 3582(c) does not authorize any reduction in defendant's sentence. See Cook, 2016 WL 7321304, at *7; see Johnson v. United States, Nos. 2:16-cv-428, 2:10-cr-185, 2016 WL 6084018, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 17, 2016) (“Amendment 794 is not retroactively applicable on collateral review. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 lists those Guidelines amendments that have been made retroactively applicable on collateral review, and Amendment 794 is not listed.”).
Defendant's reliance on United States v. Quintero-Levya, 823 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016) [Doc. 448 at p. 2] is misplaced. First, the Court notes that opinions from another Circuit may be persuasive, but are not binding on this Court. See, e.g., United States v. Hernandez, 443 Fed. App'x 34, 40 (6th Cir. 2011) (cases decided by other circuits “are merely persuasive”); Cross Mtn. Coal, Inc. v. Ward, 93 F.3d 211, 217 (6th Cir. 1996) (“even though the decisions of other circuits are entitled to our respect, they are not binding upon us”). Further, and most importantly, Quintero-Levya and the Sixth Circuit only recognize Amendment 794 to apply retroactively in direct appeals. Quintero-Levya, 823 F.3d at 523; see United States v. Carter, No. 15-3618, 2016 WL 5682707, at *6 (6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2016). As set forth above, Amendment 794 has not been designated for retroactive application to cases on collateral review.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Therefore, for all the foregoing reasons, defendant&#39;s motion under 28 U.S.C. &sect; 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence [Doc. 448] is DENIED. The Clerk is ...