United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. BRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's
Motion for Reduction of Term of Imprisonment Pursuant to
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), filed on August 25, 2017.
(Doc. 589.) Having reviewed the Motion, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court finds the Motion is not well-taken
and will be denied.
the second time Defendant has moved to reduce his sentence
pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). On February 23, 2017, Defendant,
through counsel, filed his first motion to reduce based on
Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
(See Doc. 579.) At that time, the Government
acknowledged that Defendant was eligible for a sentence
reduction pursuant to Amendment 782, but asked the Court to
deny the reduction. (See Doc. 583.)
April 10, 2017 Opinion, the Court found that “Amendment
782 reduced Defendant's total offense level from 39 to
37.” (Id. at 4.) Consequently, Defendant's
guideline sentencing range, previously calculated as 360
months to life, was reduced to 292 to 365 months. (Doc. 570
at 1.) The Court discussed its discretion to authorize a
sentence reduction pursuant to §3582(c)(2) and noted
that “eligibility for a sentence reduction under a
guidelines amendment does not create a right, but rather
allows the district court discretion to reduce a
sentence.” (Id. at 3 (citing United States
v. Meridyth, 573 F. App'x 791, 794 (10th Cir. 2014);
United States v. Osborn, 679 F.3d 1193, 1195-96
(10th Cir. 2012)).) The Court considered the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and found that a sentence
reduction was not warranted. (Id.) Mr. Archuleta did
not appeal the Court's April 10, 2017 Opinion.
now files a second motion for a reduction in sentence
pursuant to § 3582(c) based on Amendment 782. (Doc.
a ‘motion for [a] sentence reduction is not a direct
appeal or a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
the viability of [the] motion depends entirely on 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c).'” United States v.
Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1238 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting
United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 540 (10th
Cir. 1997) (internal quotation and alteration omitted)).
“Section 3582(c) provides that a ‘court may
not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed except' in three limited circumstances.”
Smartt, 129 F.3d at 540-41 (quoting 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)) (subsequent citation omitted). “First, upon
motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, a court may
reduce the term of imprisonment if it finds special
circumstances exist.” Id. (citing 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii)). “Second, a court may
modify a sentence if such modification is ‘otherwise
expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure.'” Id.
(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B)). “Finally, a
court may modify a sentence if ‘a sentencing range . .
. has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o).'” Id.
(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)).
Archuleta asserts that a modification is warranted based on
Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines,
which “reduced the base offense levels assigned to drug
quantities in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, effectively lowering the
Guidelines minimum sentences for drug offenses.”
United States v. Kurtz, 819 F.3d 1230, 1234 (10th
Cir. 2016) (quotation and subsequent citations omitted).
(See also Doc. 589.) The Court construes
Defendant's Motion, therefore, as one brought pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Court will deny Defendant's Motion for two reasons.
First, Defendant's Motion is untimely. See United
States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238, 1240-41 (10th Cir.
2011). Second, the Court has already found that a sentencing
reduction is not warranted in this case. (See Doc.
587.) Even if his Motion were timely, Defendant has offered
no reason, nor can the Court find one, that would give the
Court cause to alter its previous decision.
360-month sentence is within the reduced guidelines range
after the application of Amendment 782, which lowered his
offense level to 37 (with a criminal history category IV),
resulting in a guideline range of 292 to 365 months.
(See Doc. 587 at 2.) The Court has
discretion to reduce Defendant's sentence after
a guidelines amendment, Defendant is not entitled to
a reduction. See Meridyth, 573 F. App'x at 794.
The Court, in its discretion and after fully considering the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), found that a
sentence reduction was not warranted for
Defendant. (See Doc. 587.) The Court denies
Defendant's current Motion for the same reasons.
(Id. at 4-5.)
IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Reduction
of Term of Imprisonment Pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C.