MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Royce
C. Lamberth Senior United States District Judge
Before
the Court are defendant Mark D. Smith's pro se
motion [150] and supplemental motions submitted through
counsel [169] [173], seeking a sentence reduction pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and based upon the retroactive
application of Amendment 782 of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines (the "Guidelines"). Smith also filed
pro se a Motion for Summary Judgment as a Matter of
Law [156].
After
considering the motions, the entire record herein, and the
applicable law, the Court finds that although Smith is
eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2),
such a reduction is not warranted in these circumstances, and
will therefore DENY his motions.
BACKGROUND
On
August 24, 2010, Smith pleaded guilty to one count of
Conspiracy to distribute and Possess With Intent to
Distribute cocaine, in contravention of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(a), and 846, pursuant to
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). Plea Agreement, ECF No. 102
¶ 1.
In
accepting the terms of his plea agreement, Smith acknowledged
that he was "accountable for at least 1.5 kilograms but
less than 4.5 kilograms of cocaine base[, ]" which
represented "the total amount involved in [his] relevant
criminal conduct." Id. ¶ 2. He and the
Government separately agreed that "156 months['
incarceration] [was] the appropriate sentence for this
offense." Id. ¶ 3. Further, Smith and the
Government agreed as follows:
Should the Court not agree that the sentence agreed upon by
the parties is appropriate, and [if Smith] does not withdraw
his plea, [he] and the Government agree to the following:
[Smith] will be sentenced according to Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 3553(a) and 3553(c) through (f) and
upon consideration of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines.
Id. ¶ 5.
On
April 30, 2014, the U.S. Sentencing Commission (the
"Commission") submitted to Congress Amendment 782
of the Guidelines, proposing a downward revision to the
applicable sentencing ranges for drug trafficking offenses.
The Commission then passed Amendment 788 to allow Amendment
782's revisions to be applied retroactively, and on
November 1, 2014, Amendment 782 and its retroactive
application became effective. In his current motion, Smith
seeks relief under these amended provisions of the Sentencing
Guidelines.
DISCUSSION
Smith's
§ 3582 (c) (2) Motions
To
grant a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), two separate conditions must exist. A
prisoner must (1) be eligible for the requested reduction and
(2) early release must be warranted. Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). Smith fails to meet
the second of these requirements because the facts of this
case do not warrant early release in accordance with any of
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See
Id. § 3582(c)(2) (stating the Court may reduce the
term of imprisonment "on its own motion," but must
consider and weigh the factors set forth in § 3553(a)).
Accordingly,
although Smith is statutorily eligible for a sentence
reduction, such a reduction is not warranted in these
circumstances. Therefore, his motion for relief under §
3582(c)(2) will be denied.
i.
Smith's sentence was based upon the ...