United States v. Williams ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
)
v. ) Criminal No. 10-330 (ESH)
)
DAMIEN M. WILLIAMS, )
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________________)
ORDER
Before the Court is defendant Damien Williams’ pro se “Motion for 2 Point Reduction of
Federal Sentence Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” (Def.’s Mot., Mar. 28, 2019, ECF No. 43.)
For the reasons stated herein, the motion is denied.
Defendant was convicted in 2011 of one count of unlawful distribution of cocaine base in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B)(iii). (See Judgment, Sept. 6, 2011, ECF No. 18.)
At sentencing, the Court determined that defendant was a career offender under § 4B1.1 of the
Sentencing Guidelines, which resulted in an offense level of 31, a Criminal History Category of
VI, and a sentencing range of 188 to 235 months imprisonment. However, pursuant to a Rule
11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, the Court imposed a sentence of 144 months imprisonment. (Id. at
2; Amended Plea Agreement, ECF No. 14.)
Generally, a sentencing court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). However, § 3582(c) sets forth a limited number of exceptions
to that general rule, and § 3582(c)(2) allows a court to reduce a term of imprisonment “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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
994(o), . . . after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are
applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.” Id. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added).
In 2014, defendant filed his first motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (See Def.’s
Mot. for Reduction of Sentence, Dec. 3, 2014, ECF No. 32.) The motion sought a reduced term
of imprisonment in light of the Sentencing Commission’s adoption of Amendment 782, which
retroactively lowered the base offense levels for most drug offenses, as set forth in § 2D1.1 of
the Guidelines. These reduced offense levels, in turn, resulted in lower sentencing ranges. The
Court denied the motion because even though defendant was convicted of a drug offense, his
“sentencing range” was determined by the career offender guideline, § 4B1.1, not by the drug
offense guideline, § 2D1.1. (See Order at 1-2, Jan. 19, 2018, ECF No. 41.) Thus, his
“sentencing range” was not “lowered” by Amendment 782, and he was not eligible for a
reduction under § 3582(c)(2). (Id.)
Defendant has now filed a second motion seeking a reduced term of imprisonment
pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). In this motion he asserts that he is entitled to a two-point reduction in
his offense level in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct.
1765 (2018).
In Hughes, the Supreme Court considered whether a defendant who was sentenced
pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement was precluded from seeking a reduced term of
imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2) on the ground that a sentence pursuant to an 11(c)(1)(C) plea
agreement was not “based on” a Guidelines sentencing range. Id. at 1773. The Court rejected
that view, holding that “in the usual case the court’s acceptance of a [Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea]
2
agreement and the sentence to be imposed pursuant to that agreement are ‘based on’ the
defendant’s Guidelines range.” Id. at 1776. A defendant should only be barred from seeking
relief, the Court held, “[i]f the Guidelines range was not a relevant part of the analytic framework
the judge used to determine the sentence or to approve the agreement.” Id. at 1776 (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
The Supreme Court’s decision in Hughes, however, removes only one of the possible
obstacles to defendant’s eligibility for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). Even assuming
that defendant’s 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement was “based on” his Guidelines sentencing range, he
remains ineligible for a § 3582(c) sentence reduction because his sentence must also be “based
on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18
U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). In Hughes, this requirement was satisfied because the
defendant’s sentencing range was based on the drug quantity Guidelines that were revised by
Amendment 782. Here, though, defendant’s sentencing range is based on the career offender
Guideline, and thus this requirement is not satisfied. See, e.g., United States v. Dodds, 772 F.
App'x 733, 735–36 (10th Cir. 2019) (defendant sentenced pursuant to 11(c)(1)(C) plea
agreement was not eligible for § 3582(c) sentence reduction where career offender, not drug
quantity, Guideline determined his sentencing range). As the Court previously explained:
Amendment 782, had it been in effect, would not have altered [defendant’s] range
because the starting point for calculating defendant’s total offense level was not
based on drug quantity under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, but rather was determined by the
offense level for career offenders under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his “sentencing
range” is controlled by the career offender provision in the Guidelines and is
unaffected by Amendment 782. See United States v. Tepper, 616 F.3d 583, 588
(D.C. Cir. 2010) (“[Section] 3582(c) does not authorize a district court to reduce a
career offender’s term of imprisonment based on . . . amendments to the crack
cocaine guidelines.”).
3
(1/19/2018 Order at 2.) The same holds true today. Because there has been no change in the
career offender Guideline, defendant’s sentencing range has not been lowered, and he is not
eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s motion for a two-point reduction
pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) is DENIED.
_______________________
ELLEN S. HUVELLE
United States District Judge
Date: November 15, 2019
4