The opinion of the court was delivered by: Conti, District Judge.
Pending before the court is a motion to modify or reduce a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Doc. No. 296) filed by defendant Thomas Price ("defendant"). Upon reviewing defendant's motion, the government's response in opposition to defendant's motion for reduction of sentence (Doc. No. 297), defendant's rebuttal (Doc. No. 298), and the government's response to defendant's rebuttal (Doc. No. 301), the court will DENY defendant's motion for the reasons set forth herein.
On November 10, 1994, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant with armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), and the use of a firearm during the commission of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Doc. No. 52.) A jury trial was held and, on February 18, 1995, the jury returned a verdict of guilty with respect to both counts. (Doc. No. 159.)
Prior to defendant's sentencing, the court issued tentative findings and rulings concerning disputed facts or factors. (Doc. No. 188.) The court noted that defendant had two prior convictions in 1986. The first offense committed by defendant occurred on February 6, 1986, when defendant seized the purse of a store patron. Defendant was arrested for this offense on March 16, 1986 and pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County on September 10, 1986. (Id.) Subsequent to the March 16, 1986 arrest, defendant was placed on bond and released. (Id.) The second offense, which occurred on May 26, 1986, involved the armed robbery of a tavern bartender and several patrons. For this offense, defendant was arrested on May 29, 1986, and pleaded guilty before the same Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas judge on October 30, 1986. (Id.)
As defendant had been arrested for felonies on two previous occasions and subsequently convicted, defendant was determined to be a career offender pursuant to section 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the "Sentencing Guidelines" or "guidelines"). Based upon his career offender status, defendant's total offense level under the guidelines for his armed bank robbery conviction was increased to 34. (Doc. No. 188.) The court assessed defendant's prior criminal history category to be VI, because he was determined to be a career offender. (Id.) As a result of defendant's total offense level and criminal history category, the advisory guideline range under the guidelines was 262 to 327 months of imprisonment. On June 2, 1995, the court sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment of 262 months on the armed bank robbery charge and 60 months on the firearm charge, to be consecutively served. (Doc. No. 193.)
On June 9, 1995, defendant filed a notice of appeal of his conviction and sentence. (Doc. No. 195.) On March 13, 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. (Doc. No. 238.) United States v. Price, 76 F.3d 526, 530 (3d Cir. 1996).
On or about January 28, 2005, the clerk of court received defendant's motion to correct a miscarriage of justice. (Doc. No. 278.) In the motion, defendant alleged that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence for armed bank robbery pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). This motion was characterized as falling under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and was denied by this court on June 20, 2006, because it fell outside the one year statute of limitations period applicable to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitions. (Doc. No. 290.) Price v. United States, No. 05-106, 2006 WL 1709291, at **2-3 (W.D. Pa. June 20, 2006).
On November 28, 2008, defendant filed a motion for modification or reduction of sentence pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. (Doc. No. 296.) In this motion, defendant, relying upon an unspecified amendment to the guidelines, alleged that the district court erred in computing his criminal history.
On December 2, 2008, the court issued an order setting the briefing schedule with respect to defendant's motion for modification or reduction in sentence. (Doc. No. 296.) The court directed the government to file its response and brief in opposition on or before December 16, 2008. On December 16, 2008, the government filed its response in opposition. (Doc. No. 297.) As amendment 709 is the only recent guideline amendment concerning criminal history, the government determined that amendment was the one at issue. The government alleged that this court has no jurisdiction to alter the defendant's sentence since amendment 709 was not designated as having retroactive application.
On January 8, 2009, defendant filed a rebuttal to the government's response. (Doc. No. 298.) While the argument is unclear, defendant specifically referenced amendment 709 and argued that his sentence should be reduced pursuant to this amendment. Furthermore, defendant claimed that if amendment 709 does not have retroactive effect, he should nevertheless be granted relief because amendment 702 was designated as having retroactive application. Defendant argued that the application of amendment 702 should reduce the calculation of his advisory sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines.
On February 26, 2009, the government filed its response to defendant's rebuttal. (Doc. No. 301.) In its response, the government again argued that amendment 709 cannot reduce defendant's sentence because the reduction would not be consistent with the policy statement pertaining to retroactive application of amendments. Furthermore, the government argued that amendment 702 cannot provide defendant with relief as this amendment is not applicable to his situation. The court agrees that amendment 702 is not applicable here and that it lacks jurisdiction to reduce defendant's sentence under amendment 709.
Generally, a district court may not alter a criminal sentence of punishment once it has been imposed. United States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207, 220 (3d Cir. 2008). If the defendant's sentence, however, was based upon a sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines that has been subsequently lowered, then the court may reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment, provided the reduction is consistent with the applicable policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The applicable policy statement is found at section 1B1.10 of the Sentencing Guidelines. It provides that a reduction is warranted where the applicable guideline range has subsequently been lowered as the result of one of the guideline amendments listed in section 1B1.10(c). U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 1B1.10. If the sentencing range is not reduced by a listed amendment, then, under § 3582, the defendant is not eligible for a reduction in sentence. Even if eligible for a reduction, § 3582(c)(2) does not ...