Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190723_0001896.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-08-26 00:11:48
Document Index: 241649385

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 3582', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3582', '§ 3582', '§ 3553', '§ 3582', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 3582']

FindACase™ | United States v. Opher
United States v. Opher
JESSE OPHER
(1) promulgate the guidelines, policy statements, or amendments provided for in this Act as soon as practicable, and in any event not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act . . .; and (2) pursuant to the emergency authority provided under paragraph (1), make such conforming amendments to the Federal sentencing guidelines as the Commission determines necessary to achieve consistency with other guideline provisions and applicable law.
Direction on applying the amendments retroactively was set forth in a policy statement in the guidelines, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, requiring that the mechanics of changing sentences already reduced to judgment be consistent with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In determining whether and to what extent a defendant would receive a sentence reduction, § 1B1.10(b) directs that “the court shall substitute only the amendments listed in subsection (d) [a list of amendments that includes 750 and 782] for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.” If the amended base level attributable to the drug offense did not lower a sentenced defendant's overall guidelines range, then sentencing relief would not be available; also, any sentence reduction would not constitute a full resentencing. According to the application notes to § 1B1.10(a), “a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with this policy statement if: (i) none of the amendments listed in subsection (d) is applicable to the defendant; or (ii) an amendment listed in subsection (d) is applicable to the defendant but the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment).” Assuming eligibility, “consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the court shall consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining: (I) whether a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is warranted; and (II) the extent of such reduction, but only within the limits described in subsection (b).” The foregoing establishes that for those who were already sentenced when the Fair Sentencing Act passed, responsive guideline amendments could achieve a sentence reduction under defined circumstances. And indeed, a swath of incarcerated men and women received lowered sentences, but that only happened if the amended base offense level served to reduce their overall guidelines sentencing range. The tie-in was critical. See, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 714 F.3d 946, 950 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Because the amendment in question has no effect on the ultimate sentencing range imposed on Thompson under the career offender guidelines, the district court did not err in declining to grant his § 3582(c)(2) motion.”); United States v. Andros, 507 Fed.Appx. 725, 726 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Andros' pre-variance applicable guideline range was his career offender range under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The Sentencing Commission's amendments to the Guidelines have not lowered that guideline range. Andros is therefore ineligible for a reduction of sentence.” (citation omitted)); United States v. Wilson, 515 Fed.Appx. 877, 881 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Amendment 750, which only affected the drug quantity tables in § 2D1.1, had no effect on Wilson's guideline sentence, and the district court was not authorized to grant him § 3582(c)(2) relief.”); United States v. Mabry, 481 Fed.Appx. 797, 798 (3d Cir. 2012) (“As a career offender, Mabry's applicable Guideline range remains unchanged. Thus, . . . the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mabry's motion.”); United States v. Barlow, No. 06-694, 2017 WL 10242240, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2017) (Wolfson, J.) (“Thus, even if Amendment 782 had affected the guidelines under which Defendant Barlow was sentenced, and lowered the initially calculated guideline range, the Amendment would nevertheless have been irrelevant to Defendant's ultimate sentence, because the final guideline range under which he was sentenced would have remained the same mandatory minimum sentence required by law.”).