United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
MURGUIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the court upon petitioner Dheadry Loyd
Powell's Motion to Reduce Sentence (Doc. 157).
27, 2017, petitioner filed a motion to reduce his sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10(c)
of the Sentencing Guidelines. (Doc. 157.) Petitioner argues
that Amendments 750 and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines
should apply to his case, reducing his sentence. The
government opposes petitioner's motion because although
the amendments reduce petitioner's drug offense level,
they do not reduce the applicable guidelines range.
pleaded guilty to: (Count I) conspiracy to distribute and
possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
cocaine base, and (Count II) money laundering. At the
sentencing hearing on May 1, 2007, the court found that
petitioner's total offense level should be level 48, but
because the sentencing guidelines are capped at level 43,
petitioner's total offense level for purposes of
sentencing was level 43. Petitioner's criminal history
category was determined to be four. He was sentenced to life
imprisonment on Count I and 20 years on Count II to run
concurrently, followed by five years of supervised release.
courts generally lack jurisdiction to reduce a sentence once
it has been imposed. United States v.
Kurtz, 819 F.3d 1230, 1233-34 (10th Cir. 2016). 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) provides that the
court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed except that . . . 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), upon
motion of the defendant . . . the court may reduce the term
of imprisonment, 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.
1B1.10 is the policy statement governing § 3582(c). It
requires a court considering a sentence reduction 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.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1).
Amendment 750, the Sentencing Commission revised the drug
equivalency tables in the commentary to § 2D1.1 so that
one gram of cocaine is now treated as the equivalent of 3571
grams, not 20 kilograms, of marijuana.” United
States v. Robinson, 506 Fed.Appx. 840, 841 (10th Cir.
2013). Amendment 782 reduced the base offense levels
attributed to some drug offenses in the Drug Quantity Table
found in § 2D1.1 of the Guidelines, which lowered the
Guidelines minimum sentences for drug offenses.
a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) requires “a
two-step inquiry. A court must first determine that a
reduction is consistent with § 1B1.10 before it may
consider whether the authorized reduction is warranted,
either in whole or in part, according to the factors set
forth in § 3553(a).” Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). A petitioner is not
entitled to a reduction if “an amendment . . . does not
have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable
guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
“The Guidelines policy statements . . . explain that
§ 3582(c)(2) proceedings do not constitute a full
resentencing of the defendant.” United States v.
Battle, 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013).
court's first step is to determine “the amended
guideline range that would have been applicable to the
defendant had the relevant amendment been in effect at the
time of ...