Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Igleheart

United States District Court, D. Kansas

February 6, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RAYMON IGLEHEART, JR., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          JULIE A. ROBINSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On October 29, 2012, the Court sentenced Defendant Raymon Igleheart, Jr. to 120 months' imprisonment. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's pro se Motion for Sentence Reduction (Doc. 75), seeking a two-level reduction under Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Government objects to the request (Doc. 78). For the reasons explained below, the Court denies Defendant's motion.

         On April 5, 2012, Defendant pled guilty to Count 1, conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Defendant's plea carried a statutory mandatory minimum term of ten years' imprisonment.[1] In anticipation of sentencing, the United States Probation Office prepared a Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) using the 2011 edition of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines” or “U.S.S.G.”).[2] The PSR found Defendant accountable for 6.86 kilograms of methamphetamine, corresponding to a base offense level of 36, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2). To this base offense level, the PSR added a two-level enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) because Defendant possessed a firearm; added a two-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) because of Defendant's enhanced roll in the offense; and subtracted three levels under § 3E1.1 to reflect Defendant's acceptance of responsibility.[3]Defendant's total offense level was calculated at 37; cross-referenced with his criminal history category of I, the resulting Guidelines range was 210 to 262 months' imprisonment.[4] The Court granted the Government's Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, [5] and October 29, 2012, this Court sentenced Defendant to the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months.[6]

         Relying on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, Defendant seeks a two-level reduction to his base offense level to reflect the amendment to § 2D1.1(c).[7] A federal district court may modify a defendant's sentence only where Congress has expressly authorized it to do so.[8]Amendment 782 did not have the effect of lowering Defendant's applicable Guidelines sentencing range because Defendant's sentence was set at the mandatory minimum established by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (viii), the sentencing provision under which he was convicted.[9] Moreover, the Guidelines required that the mandatory minimum sentence be imposed, rather than the Guidelines sentence calculated under § 2D1.1.[10] Thus, because Defendant was sentenced based on a statutorily mandated minimum sentence, rather than a sentencing range produced by application of § 2D1.1, this Court lacks authority under § 3582(c)(2) to grant his motion, and the motion must be dismissed.[11]

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Doc. 75) is dismissed.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1]21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii).

[2]Doc. 29.

[3]Id. ¶¶ 41-48.

[4] Id. ¶ 81.

[5]Doc. 58.

[6]Doc. 64.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.