OPINION AND ORDER
PAUL
L. FRIEDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The
matters before the Court are defendant Edward Tyrone
Farley's pro se motion to reduce his sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment
782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines [Dkt. No.
212], and his pro se motion seeking various forms of
relief under Rule 60(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure [Dkt. No. 214]. The United States opposes both
motions. Upon careful consideration of the parties'
written submissions, the relevant legal authorities, and the
entire record in this case, the Court will deny both
motions.[1]
I.
BACKGROUND
In
January 2009, Mr. Farley entered a plea of guilty pursuant to
Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1).
See Plea ¶ 1. As part of the plea agreement,
Mr. Farley acknowledged responsibility for at least one
kilogram, but less than three kilograms, of heroin. See
id. ¶ 2.
The
presentence investigation report prepared by the Probation
Office reflected a base offense level of 32, plus a
three-level enhancement for Mr. Farley's role as a
supervisor or manager in the criminal activity, for an
adjusted offense level of 35. See PSR ¶¶
32, 35. Because Mr. Farley qualified as a career offender
under Section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, however,
the presentence investigation report set an adjusted offense
level of 37 and a criminal history category of VI. See
id. ¶¶ 38, 55. Mr. Farley received a
three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of 34.
See id. ¶¶ 39-40. With a total offense
level of 34 and a criminal history category of VI, Mr.
Farley's guidelines sentencing range was 262 to 327
months. See id. ¶ 108. In making its own
independent guidelines determination, as required by law, the
Court agreed with the calculations made by the Probation
Office. In the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, however, Mr.
Farley and the United States agreed to a below-guidelines
sentence of 180 months. See Plea ¶ 3. On June
30, 2009, Judge James Robertson accepted the plea and imposed
a sentence of 180 months' imprisonment. See
Judgment at 2.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Section 3582 Motion Based on Amendment 782
Mr.
Farley moves for a reduction in his sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the drug quantity
tables in the Sentencing Guidelines, an amendment which was
made retroactive by Amendment 788. See Section 3582
Mot. at 1-2. Amendment 782 reduced by two levels the base
offense levels for certain controlled substance offenses.
See U.S.S.G. app. C, amends. 782 (reduction), 788
(making Amendment 782 retroactive). The United States opposes
the requested sentence reduction on the ground that Mr.
Farley's offense level was determined by his designation
as a career offender under Section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing
Guidelines - the career offender guideline - rather than by
drug quantity. See Opp'n at 6-8. Mr. Farley, in
turn, challenges his designation as a career offender on the
ground that his prior controlled substance offenses are too
dated to constitute valid career offender predicate offenses.
See 3582 Mot. at 3-4.
Under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the Court may modify a sentence
when the defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment
based on a sentencing range that subsequently has been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See Dillon v.
United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819 (2010). Any sentence
modification under Section 3582(c)(2) must be
“consistent with applicable policy statements issued by
the Sentencing Commission.” Id. at 821
(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). The Court must first
determine whether the defendant is eligible for a sentence
modification under Section 3582(c)(2), and then determine, in
its discretion, whether a reduction in the sentence is
warranted considering the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). See United States v. Butler, 130
F.Supp.3d 317, 319-20 (D.D.C. 2015), aff'd sub
nom. United States v. Jones, 846 F.3d 366 (D.C.
Cir. 2017). To be eligible for a sentence modification under
Section 3582(c)(2), a defendant must show that he was
initially sentenced “based on a sentencing range that
has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,
” and that the modification is “consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see
Hughes v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1765, 1773, 1775
(2018); Koons v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1783,
1786-87 (2018); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. at
819.
The
policy statement applicable to this case - Section 1B1.10 of
the Sentencing Guidelines - provides that a sentence
reduction “is not consistent with this policy statement
and therefore is not authorized by Section 3582(c)(2)”
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).
For a defendant who qualifies as a career offender, the
“applicable guideline range” referenced in
Section 1B1.10 is the range provided by the career offender
provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, not the drug quantity
tables. See United States v. Akers, 892 F.3d 432,
434 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Berry,
618 F.3d 13, 18 (D.C. Cir. 2010)).
Here,
Amendment 782 does not have the effect of lowering Mr.
Farley's “applicable guideline range” because
he was designated as a career offender under the Sentencing
Guidelines. His career offender designation resulted in an
offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of VI,
regardless of the quantity of drugs that he acknowledged in
his plea agreement. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. He
then received a three-level downward adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense
level of 34. See PSR ¶¶ 39-40. Because of
Mr. Farley's designation as a career offender, the drug
quantity guidelines played no role in determining Mr.
Farley's sentence. See United States v. Akers,
892 F.3d at 434. Mr. Farley's “applicable guideline
range” therefore remains unchanged by the revised drug
quantity tables under Amendment 782: his offense level
remains 34, his criminal history category remains VI, and his
applicable guidelines sentencing range remains 262 to 327
months. Because Amendment 782 has no impact on Mr.
Farley's applicable guidelines sentencing range, he is
not eligible for the requested sentence modification under
Section 3582(c)(2). See, e.g., United
States v. Akers, 892 F.3d at 434 (affirming district
court's determination that career offender was not
eligible for sentence reduction based on Amendment 782);
United States v. Perez, No. 09-0293, 2017 WL
3446757, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug. 9, 2017); United States v.
King-Gore, No. 12-0023-01, 2016 WL 10951263, at *2
(D.D.C. Apr. 19, 2016); United States v. Clipper,
179 F.Supp.3d 110, 117 (D.D.C. 2016).
Mr.
Farley challenges his designation as a career offender on the
ground that his prior controlled substance offenses are too
dated to constitute valid career offender predicate offenses.
See Section 3582 Mot. at 3-4. This argument is
unavailing. A defendant is a career offender under Section
4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines if: (1) he was at least
eighteen years old at the time he committed the instant
offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense of conviction
is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a
controlled substance offense; and (3) he has at least two
prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a
controlled substance offense. See U.S.S.G. §
4B1.1(a). Under Section 4A1.2(e)(1) of the Sentencing
Guidelines, the career offender designation may be applied if
the sentences for the two prior felony convictions
“exceed[] one year and one month” and were
“imposed within fifteen years of the defendant's
commencement of the instant offense, ” and any
“prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and
one month, whenever imposed, . . . resulted in the defendant
being incarcerated during any part of such fifteen-year
period.” Id. § 4A1.2(e); see id.
§ 4B1.2, application note 3.
Applying
those factors here, Mr. Farley was approximately 45 years old
in April 2007 when the instant conspiracy offense began, the
instant conviction is for felony conspiracy heroin
distribution, and Mr. Farley has two prior felony convictions
for cocaine distribution. See PSR ¶¶ 3,
20, 38, 48-49. The sentences for the two prior felony
convictions were imposed in May 1992 and August 1992,
respectively, and each sentence exceeded one year and one
month. See id. ¶¶ 48-49. Because Mr.
Farley committed the instant offense beginning in April 2007,
the sentences for these 1992 felony convictions were imposed
“within fifteen years of the defendant's
commencement of the instant offense.” See
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e). In addition, in view of the fact
that Mr. Farley was released on parole in July 2006 for both
1992 felony convictions, see PSR ¶¶ 48-49,
he was subject to a “prior sentence of imprisonment
exceeding one year . . . whenever imposed, that resulted in
the defendant being incarcerated during any part of such
fifteen-year period.” See U.S.S.G. §
4A1.2(e). Accordingly, the 1992 felony convictions are
appropriate predicate offenses for Mr. Farley's career
offender designation. See United States v. Clipper,
179 F.Supp.3d at 117 (rejecting challenge to career offender
designation raised in Section 3582(c)(2) motion). Mr. Farley
therefore is not eligible for a sentence modification based
on a retroactive application of Amendment 782.
B.
...