Source: http://ia.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150407_0000452.NIA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-04 06:03:58
Document Index: 595175435

Matched Legal Cases: ['§4', '§5', '§ 3582', '§1', '§1', '§4', '§5', '§1', '§ 3582', '§1', '§ 3582', '§ 3582', '§1', '§1']

| United States v. Ehler
United States v. Ehler
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,v.JASON JOHN EHLER, Defendant.
MARK W. BENNETT, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA.
At the defendant’s sentencing, the court calculated a total adjusted offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of IV. Such offense level and criminal history correspond to a sentencing guideline range of 292 to 365 months imprisonment. After relying on USSG §4A1.3 to depart downward to criminal history category III and relying on USSG §5G1.3(b) to depart downward by 35 months imprisonment, the court calculated a sentencing guideline range of 227 to 292 months imprisonment. The court sentenced the defendant to 227 months imprisonment. After applying Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)), the defendant faces a total adjusted offense level of 35 and a criminal history category of IV. Such offense level and criminal history correspond to an amended sentencing guideline range of 235 to 293 months imprisonment. The bottom of the amended sentencing guideline range is higher than the sentence that the court imposed, that is, 227 months imprisonment. So, as a result of the court departing downward, the defendant received a greater benefit, that is, a sentence below the amended sentencing guideline range.
In sum, 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 imposed a term of imprisonment outside the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing as a result of a downward departure pursuant to USSG §4A1.3 and a downward departure pursuant to USSG §5G1.3, the court is unable to reduce the defendant’s sentence. See USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“Except as provided in subdivision (B), the court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range determined under subdivision (1) of this subsection.”); USSG §1B1.10, comment. (n.3) (making clear that a reduction is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if the court imposed a term of imprisonment outside the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing as a result of a downward departure or variance and such term is less than the minimum term of imprisonment provided by the amended guideline range); see also United States v. Anderson, 686 F.3d 585, 588-90 (8th Cir. 2012) (noting that not all downward departures and variances that applied to the original sentence are available under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)); United States v. Maxwell, 590 F.3d 585, 588 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussing USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(A)); United States v. Higgins, 584 F.3d 770, 772 (8th Cir. 2009) (same); United States v. Murphy, 578 F.3d 719, 721 (8th Cir. 2009) (same); United States v. Wagner, 563 F.3d 680, 682 (8th Cir. 2009) (emphasizing that the authority to reduce a sentence is constrained by USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(A)).