Source: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-bullard-16
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:05:59
Document Index: 80635688

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3582', '§ 3582', '§ 1', '§ 3582', '§ 3553', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3553', '§ 1', '§ 3553', '§ 5', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1']

United States v. Bullard, No.: 3:01-CR-107 | Casetext
No.: 3:01-CR-107 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 13, 2015)
United Statesv.Bullard
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLEOct 13, 2015
No.: 3:01-CR-107
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. KWANBE D. BULLARD
This criminal case is before the court on the defendant's motion for sentence reduction [doc. 71]. Through counsel, the defendant asks the court to lower his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and in accordance with Amendments 782 and 788 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G."). The government has responded [doc. 72], deferring to the court's discretion whether and to what extent to grant any such reduction, subject to the limitations of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.
"Federal courts are forbidden, as a general matter, to modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed, but the rule of finality is subject to a few narrow exceptions." Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685, 2690 (2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). One such exception is identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2):
[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . , the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
If the court finds a defendant eligible for sentence reduction, "[t]he court may then 'consider whether the authorized reduction is warranted, either in whole or in part, according to the factors set forth in § 3553(a).'" United States v. Thompson, 714 F.3d 946, 949 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010)).
Other than substituting Amendment 782 for the corresponding provision applicable when the defendant was originally sentenced, the court "shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected." See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(1) (2014). The court "shall not" reduce a defendant's term of imprisonment to a term "less than the minimum of the amended guideline range," nor to a term "less than the term of imprisonment the defendant has already served." Id. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), (C). In addition, the commentary to guideline 1B1.10 provides that a court must also consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the danger to the public created by any reduction in a defendant's sentence. See id. cmt. n.1(B). A court may further consider a defendant's post-sentencing conduct. See id.
Guideline 1B1.10 provides one exception to the rule that a defendant may not receive a sentence below the amended guideline range—namely, if the defendant originally received a below-guideline sentence "pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant's substantial assistance to authorities." Id. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). That is the case here. --------
By judgment entered September 23, 2003, this court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment of 180 months as to Count One (conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine). The defendant's guideline range was 97 to 121 months (total offense level 29, criminal history category II), restricted to a range of 240 to 240 months by a statutory mandatory minimum. Prior to sentencing, the United States filed a motion for downward departure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 which the court granted in imposing the 180-month sentence, a reduction of 25 percent from the bottom of the restricted guideline range. According to the Bureau of Prisons, the defendant is presently scheduled for release on November 5, 2015.
Applying Amendment 782, the defendant's new guideline range is 78 to 97 months, based on a total offense level of 27 and a criminal history category of II. Thus, the defendant was originally sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Applying U.S.S.G § 1B1.10(c), a corresponding 3553(e) departure may be applied without regard to the mandatory minimum sentence.
For the reasons stated herein, the defendant's motion [doc. 71] is GRANTED. The defendant's term of imprisonment is reduced to 59 months, which is a corresponding 25 percent substantial assistance reduction from the bottom of his new guideline range. If this sentence is less than the amount of time the defendant has already served, the sentence shall instead be reduced to "time served." See id. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(C).
Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment entered September 23, 2003, shall remain in effect. The effective date of this order is November 2 , 2015 . See id. § 1B1.10(e)(1).