Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20090505_0000393.NNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-08 16:02:00
Document Index: 3035467

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 846', '§ 3553', '§ 5', '§ 3553', '§ 3582', '§ 3553', '§ 5', '§ 3553', '§ 3553']

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.ARTIE JOHNSON, DEFENDANT.
On September 7, 2005, pursuant to an Agreement between the parties, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment, charging him with conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and distribute cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). See Dkt. No. 162. At the time of sentencing, the Court found that Defendant's total offense level was 29 and that his criminal history was II, resulting in a presumptive United States Sentencing Guidelines range of 97 to 121 months' incarceration.
However, a ten-year (120 month) statutory minimum sentence applied. The Government moved for a downward departure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") § 5K1.1 based on Defendant's substantial assistance. The Court granted the motion and, on April 13, 2007, imposed a sentence of sixty-four (64) months' incarceration.
The Government opposes the motion on the ground that, because the Court sentenced Defendant "below the otherwise applicable mandatory minimum term of imprisonment solely because this Court granted the [G]overnment's motion pursuant to § 3553(e), he is not entitled to seek relief pursuant to § 3582(c)(2)." See Dkt. No. 271 at (unnumbered) 5.
In determining Defendant's sentence in this case, the Court began with the mandatory statutory minimum of 120 months. Moreover, pursuant to its authority under § 3553(e), the Court imposed a sentence below this statutory mandatory minimum based solely on the Government's motion pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Thus, the ultimate sentence that the Court imposed was not a Guidelines sentence but rather a statutory sentence that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) authorized. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e).*fn1 Therefore, because the Court fully considered Defendant's cooperation in setting his sentence and because the Court is limited to considering only Defendant's cooperation in moving below the statutory mandatory minimum, for all practical purposes, the crack cocaine sentencing amendment is superfluous. See United States v. Veale, No. 03-CR-167, 2008 WL 619176, *3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2008).