United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROBINSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Defendant
Manuel Lopez-Deharo's Motion For Reduction of Sentence
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Doc. 505). For the
reasons explained below, the motion is denied.
October 21, 2015, Defendant pled guilty pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) to one count of aiding and abetting the
possession with the intent to distribute and distribution of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. In anticipation of
sentencing, the United States Probation Office prepared a
Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), which
determined that Defendant was responsible for 4.5 kilograms
or more of ice methamphetamine, resulting in a base offense
level of 38. Defendant was assessed a four-level
increase for his role in the offense as an organizer or
leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more
participants pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a),
a three-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility,
resulting in a total offense level of 39. Defendant's
criminal history was I, resulting in a Guidelines range of
262 to 327 months.Neither party objected to the PSR.
January 26, 2016, the Court sentenced Defendant to 60
months' imprisonment, as the parties agreed in the Rule
11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. Defendant did not file a direct
appeal in this matter. On December 12, 2016, Defendant filed
the instant motion, seeking a sentence reduction under
Amendment 794 and § 3582(c)(2).
requests the Court grant him a minor role reduction under
Amendment 794, which was effective November 1, 2015, but does
not suggest what his new sentence should be. Amendment 794
was incorporated into the 2015 edition of the United States
Sentencing Guidelines, upon which the PSR relied when
calculating Defendant's imprisonment range.Defendant is not
eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction because
the Court sentenced him after Amendment 794's effective
date. Section 3582(c)(2) allows a court to reduce a sentence
“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.” In other words, § 3582(c)(2)
authorizes a sentence reduction only in cases where an
amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines became effective after
a defendant was sentenced. The Guidelines reinforce this
point by instructing courts to “determine the amended
guideline range that would have been applicable to the
defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines . . . had
been in effect at the time the defendant was
sentenced.” Thus, because Defendant was sentenced
after Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines became
effective, that Amendment may not be the basis for a §
THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant Manuel
Lopez-Deharo's Motion For Reduction of Sentence Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is DENIED.
Doc. 429 at ¶ 61.
Id. at ¶ 64.
Id. at ¶ 70.
Id. at ¶ 112.