Opinion ID: 2981811
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Eligibility for a Reduction

Text: We review de novo a district court’s conclusion that a defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction. United States v. McClain, 691 F.3d 774, 777 (6th Cir. 2012). A district court generally cannot modify a sentence of imprisonment once it has been imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690 (2010). However, there is an exception to the general rule “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In short, to determine whether Moody is eligible for a sentence reduction we must answer two questions: (1) was his sentence “based on” a sentencing range that has been lowered by Amendment 750; and (2) would a sentence reduction comply with the applicable policy statements? We answer the first question “yes” but the second “no.”
To ascertain whether a sentence was “based on” a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered, we are bound by United States v. Hameed, 614 F.3d 259 (6th Cir. 2010), which requires us to “look to what the district court actually said and did at the original sentencing” to determine “whether the original sentence was, in fact, based on such a range.” See id. at 264 (quotations omitted). Here, the district court exclusively discussed the guideline range, and it never mentioned the mandatory minimum sentence. Amendment 750 reduced Moody’s guideline range from 57-71 -3- No. 12-3924 USA v. Moody months to 46-57 months. Clearly, then, Moody’s sentence was “based on” a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered.
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