U.S. v. WILLIS (W.D.Mich. 12-3-2007)

File No. 1:05-CR-18.United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
December 3, 2007

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT BELL, Chief District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Robert Willis’ motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

On March 14, 2006, a jury found Defendant guilty of distribution of cocaine base, distribution of cocaine base within 1,000 feet of a school, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. (Dkt. No. 176, Jury Verdict). Defendant was sentenced to 224 months in prison. (Dkt. No. 181, J. of 6/13/2006). Defendant’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. (Dkt. No. 205, United States v. Willis, No. 06-1872, slip op. (6th Cir. Mar. 22, 2007).)

A court is generally prohibited from modifying a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed, subject to certain narrowly drafted exceptions. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (“The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that. . . .”). Defendant relies on the exception found at 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2)

Page 2

empowers a district court to modify a prisoner’s sentence that would otherwise be final. United States v. Peveler, 359 F.3d 369, 374 (6th Cir. 2004). Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes a court to reduce a term of imprisonment if the defendant’s sentence was based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission and if a reduction would be consistent with the applicable policy statements in the guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).[1] Amendments to the guidelines which have been given retroactive effect and which thus permit a defendant to seek relief under § 3582(c)(2) are listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). United States v. Dullen, 15 F.3d 68, 69-70 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Jackson, 108 F. App’x 338, 340 (6th Cir. 2004) (unpulished); United States v. Smith, 88 F. App’x 71, 72
(6th Cir. 2004) (unpublished).

Defendant relies on two amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines in support of his motion for reduction of sentence: Amendment 433 and Amendment 484. Both of these amendments are listed as having been given retroactive effect in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c).

Page 3

However, the effective dates of these amendments were November 1, 1991, and November 1, 1993. U.S.S.G. App’x C, Vol. I at 304, 380. Thus, both amendments were effective prior to Defendant’s sentencing in 2006. Section 3582(c)(2) only allows a modification of a sentence based on a reduction in the sentencing rangesubsequent to sentencing. Because Amendments 433 and 484 were not adopted subsequent to Defendant’s sentencing, they do not authorize a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Robert Willis’ motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Dkt. No. 213) is DENIED.

Page 1