United States District Court, District of Columbia
MEMORANDUM OPINION [DKTS. ## 157, 170]
RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge
before the Court is defendant Latrell Brandon Thompson's
Motion to Modify Terms of Imprisonment [Dkt. # 157], which
asks the Court to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and based on Amendment 782 to the United
States Sentencing Guidelines. Upon consideration of the
parties' pleadings, the relevant law, and the entire
record herein, the Court DENIES defendant's motion.
August 8, 2011, Mr. Thompson pleaded guilty to one count of
Unlawful Distribution of Phencyclidine, in violation of 21
USC §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(c). See Minute Entry
(Aug. 8, 2011); Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 77]. In the plea
agreement and the factual proffer accompanying his plea, Mr.
Thompson acknowledged that he was accountable for at least
one hundred grams but less than four hundred grams of a
mixture containing a detectable amount of phencyclidine. Plea
Agreement ¶ 2. Statement of Facts ¶ 1 [Dkt. # 78].
At the time I sentenced Mr. Thompson, on March 1, 2012, an
offense involving at least one hundred grams but less than
four hundred grams carried a base offense level of 26. U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G.") §
2D1.1(a)(5) and (c)(7) (2012). At sentencing, I determined
that the applicable Guidelines sentencing range was 57 to 71
months, based on an offense level of 23 and a criminal
history category of III, and I sentenced him to 60 months
incarceration. Final Presentence Investigation Report at 8,
10 [Dkt. # 104]; Minute Entry (March 1, 2012); Judgment [Dkt.
# 153]; Statement of Reasons [Dkt. # 154].
2014, the Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 782, which
lowered the base offense levels for most drug offenses by two
points. See U.S.S.G., Supp. to App. C, Amend. 782
(Nov. 1, 2014). The Amendment reduces Mr. Thompsons's
total adjusted offense level by two points, from 23 to 21.
Currently before this Court is defendant's motion to
reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based
on Amendment 782.
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a criminal defendant may move
to reduce his sentence if he was originally sentenced
"based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission." The Court's
power to grant such a motion is discretionary. United
States v. Kennedy, 722 F.3d 439, 442 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
"A [S]ection 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not a plenary
resentencing proceeding, nor is it a license for the
defendant to re-litigate his sentence wholesale or challenge
previously adjudicated aspects of his conviction."
United States v. Wyche, 741 F.3d 1284, 1292 (D.C.
Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
result, the Court conducts "a limited, two-step
inquiry" when evaluating 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)
motions. Id. (citing Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010)). First, I must
"determine[s] the prisoner's eligibility for a
sentence modification and the extent of the reduction
authorized" by "'determining] the amended
guideline range that would have been applicable to the
defendant' had the relevant amendment been in effect at
the time of the initial sentencing." Dillon,
560 U.S. at 827 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1)). If
the defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction, I must
then "consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and
determine whether, in [my] discretion, the reduction
authorized by reference to the policies relevant at step one
is warranted in whole or in part under the particular
circumstances of the case." Dillon, 560 U.S. at
clear that Mr. Thompson is eligible for a sentence reduction
pursuant to Amendment 782. After Amendment 782, Mr.
Thompson's conviction for Unlawful Distribution of
Phencyclidine, in violation of 21 USC §§ 841(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(c), would be subject to a Guidelines range based
upon a total offense level of 21 and Criminal History
Category III, or a range of 46-57 months in prison.
See U.S.S.G. § 2D 1.1 (c)(8) (2017) (Drug
now determine whether any further reduction to Thompson's
60-month sentence "is warranted. . . under the
particular circumstances of th[is] case."
Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827. I conclude it is not. In
making this decision, I consider the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c),
as well as "post-sentencing conduct of the defendant
that occurred after imposition of the term of imprisonment. .
. ." U.S.S.G. § IB 1.10 Commentary, Application
evaluation of the § 3553(a) factors and § 1B1.10
compels me to deny the Motion. Mr. Thompson was originally
convicted of knowingly distributing phencyclidine in the
Washington, D.C. and Maryland area, and my 60-month sentence
was based on a careful consideration of the § 3553
factors. However, Mr. Thompson's post-sentencing conduct
in this case has been particularly egregious and troubling,
and weighs heavily in my decision to exercise my discretion
and deny his motion to reduce his sentence by the requested
11-14 months. In August 2013, Mr. Thompson was designated to
a residential reentry center ("RRC"). On October
24, 2013, Mr. Thompson escaped from the RRC and was on
"escape status" for more than thirteen
months until December 2014, when he was arrested, and
ultimately pleaded guilty in D.C. Superior Court to unlawful
possession of a firearm at the time of his arrest. Probation
Memorandum [Dkt. # 169]. Mr. Thompson's thirteen-month
escape and commission of a crime, during the time when he was
supposed to be serving the sentence he now seeks to reduce,
render it inconceivable that I would grant a request to
reduce his sentence. Indeed, it takes some chutzpah for him
to even ask !
taking into account the sentencing factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the policy statement set forth at
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, defendant's motion to reduce his
sentence is hereby DENIED. A ...