Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100301_0000378.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-22 18:54:56
Document Index: 620338679

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3582', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 3582', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 3582', '§ 3582']

LEE CARROLL, DEFENDANT.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Lee Carroll's pro se Motion (Doc. 94) for a reduction of his criminal sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (hereinafter "U.S.S.G.") § 1B1.10. The Court appointed counsel for Carroll, and said counsel has since moved to withdraw on the basis that she can make no non-frivolous arguments in support of Carroll's request. (See Doc. 99); see also Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Despite the allowance of a response period by this Court (see Doc. 101), Carroll did not respond to defense counsel's motion. Meanwhile, the Government filed a Response (Doc. 104) that agreed with the basic assertions and relief sought by defense counsel.
Carroll pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute 5 grams or more of a mixture containing crack cocaine. At sentencing, the Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Carroll's relevant conduct was at least 150 grams but not more than 500 grams of crack cocaine, which under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 yielded a base offense level of 34. His offense level was reduced by three points under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility. However, the Court found that Carroll was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior drug or violent felony convictions, which raised his offense level to 37, again reduced by 3 to 34 for acceptance of responsibility. Considering Carroll's criminal history category of VI, established by his career offender status under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, this yielded a sentencing range of 262 to 327 months in prison. The Court imposed a sentence of 262 months. Carroll now asks the Court to apply recent changes to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to lower his sentence.
Carroll cannot satisfy the first criterion because he was not "sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o)." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Amendments 706 and 711 amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) as of November 1, 2007, to lower by two points the base offense levels associated with various amounts of crack cocaine. The Sentencing Commission amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) intending to alter the disparity in sentences involving crack cocaine and sentences involving powder cocaine. Carroll, however, was sentenced based on his base offense level set forth in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not his base offense level set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See Forman, 553 F.3d at 589-90. Thus, his guideline range has not been lowered, and he cannot satisfy the first criterion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for obtaining a sentence reduction.
Because Carroll cannot satisfy the first criterion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for obtaining a sentence reduction, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider his reduction request. See Forman, 553 F.3d at 588; Lawrence, 535 F.3d at 637-38. The Court therefore GRANTS counsel's Motion (Doc. 99) to withdraw and DISMISSES Carroll's pro se Motion (Doc. 94) for a sentence reduction for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Lee Carroll, Reg. #05052-025, FMC Lexington, Federal Medical Center, P.O. Box 14500, Lexington, KY 40512.