Opinion ID: 4445950
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Adrian Bennett

Text: Adrian Bennett, like Rush, received his supply of metham‐ phetamine and cocaine directly from Zamudio to then distrib‐ ute. Bennett was indicted on three counts: one count of con‐ spiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846; one count of possession with intent to distribute a con‐ trolled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and one count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He initially entered into a plea agreement, wherein he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with in‐ tent to distribute and to distribute controlled substances. The government filed a § 851 information notifying Bennett of its Nos. 18‐2009, et al. 9 intent to rely on one prior felony drug oﬀense. Between the time Bennett’s guilty plea was entered and his sentencing, the First Step Act of 2018 became law. See Pub. L. No. 115–391, 132 Stat. 5194 (Dec. 21, 2018). Title IV, Section 401 of the First Step Act precluded the prior drug oﬀense from qualifying as a predicate oﬀense under §§ 841 and 851. Because Bennett was then no longer subject to the enhancement, his statutory im‐ prisonment range was significantly reduced. At the sentencing hearing, Bennett moved to withdraw his plea agreement based on the dramatic change in circum‐ stances. The government did not object and the district court allowed the withdrawal. After some additional discussion, Bennett decided to proceed with an open plea. Without the § 851 enhancement, the conviction carried a statutory range of ten years to life imprisonment (down from a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment). The Sentencing Guidelines range was a term of 262 months to 327 months. After the district court heard argument from defense counsel and the government, and a statement of allocution from Bennett, it imposed a below‐Guidelines sentence of 225 months’ imprisonment. The sentence was “based upon the defendant’s remorse, his family ties, [and] his addictions,” and “addresse[d] the defendant’s personal history, his char‐ acteristics, as well as the serious nature of the oﬀense, by pro‐ moting respect for the law, providing deterrence, and protect‐ ing the public.” The court further explained its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors in arriving at the below‐Guidelines sentence. Bennett appealed his sentence as unreasonable. 10 Nos. 18‐2009, et al.