Opinion ID: 2981811
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: policy statement inquiry

Text: But even though Moody’s sentence was “based on” a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered, a sentence reduction must still comply with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements. One applicable policy statement says that a sentence reduction is not allowed if the relevant amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(b) (emphasis added). The Guidelines provide that “[w]here a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.” § 5G1.1(b). We have repeatedly said that “where a mandatory minimum sentence applies that exceeds the otherwise applicable guideline range, the mandatory minimum sentence becomes the applicable guideline range.” United States v. Williams, No. 12-3353, 2013 WL 331579, at  (6th Cir. Jan. 30, 2013); see also McClain, 691 F.3d at 779-80 (“The Sentencing Commission’s policy statements explicitly provide that the mandatory minimum becomes a defendant’s applicable range.”); United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419, 423 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Where a mandatory minimum sentence exceeds the otherwise applicable Guidelines range . . . it replaces that Guidelines range.”); cf. Hameed, 614 F.3d at 268 (“[T]he guideline range resulting from [the] base offense level was not ‘applicable’ because it was not the correct point from which the departure should have been measured.”). Since the 120-month mandatory minimum sentence was greater than the guideline range, the mandatory minimum became the “applicable guideline range” for purposes of U.S.S.G. -4- No. 12-3924 USA v. Moody § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). The Sentencing Commission, of course, has no power to reduce a mandatory minimum sentence set by Congress, and Amendment 750 has no effect on the mandatory minimum for Moody’s crime. Therefore, Moody is ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because a reduction would be inconsistent with an applicable policy statement.2 Furthermore, the Fair Sentencing Act does not apply retroactively to reduce the mandatory minimum for Moody’s crime because he was sentenced before the Act’s effective date. See United States v. Hammond, 712