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 of America v. Leslie Smith

July 5, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
LESLIE SMITH DEFENDANT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Conti, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Pending before the court is a motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) ("§ 3582") (the "Motion") (ECF No. 103), filed by defendant Leslie Smith ("defendant"). The Motion appears to seek a sentence reduction by reason of a retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 ("Fair Sentencing Act"), Pub. L. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010). Upon reviewing the Motion and the government's response thereto (ECF No. 104), the Motion will be denied because at this time the Fair Sentencing Act cannot be retroactively applied.

I. Background

On May 1, 2007, a federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment charging defendant with possession with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in the form commonly known as crack, on or about December 8, 2005 (count I), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii). On February 10, 2009, defendant pled guilty to count I of the indictment.

On February 26, 2010, the court sentenced defendant to the applicable mandatory minimum sentence of one hundred and twenty months, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). The statute in effect at the time of defendant's sentencing triggered a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of one hundred and twenty months for the amount of drugs involved in the offense for which defendant was convicted. The Fair Sentencing Act increased the drug amount which would trigger the mandatory minimum term for defendant's convicted offense. In other words, if the Fair Sentencing Act was retroactive, the applicable mandatory minimum sentence would be sixty months for the amount of drugs involved in defendant's offense.

On March 24, 2010 defendant filed an initial motion for a sentence reduction (ECF No. 97), pursuant to § 3582. In that motion, defendant requested the court to reduce his sentence based upon a change in the guidelines which retroactively would reduce his sentence from one hundred and twenty months to fifty-seven months. On July 30, 2010, the court issued a memorandum order ("Memorandum Order") (ECF No. 102) with respect to that motion. See United States v. Smith, Crim. No. 07-176, 2010 WL 3039177, at *2 (W.D. Pa. July 30, 2010). Although defendant did not specify the authority upon which he relied to support his request for relief, in the Memorandum Opinion the court noted:

It is apparent to the court, however, that defendant's motion is based upon the Sentencing Commission's amendment 706, which had the effect of lowering crack cocaine offense by two levels, and authorizing a court to reduce retroactively a defendant's term of imprisonment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582.

Smith, 2010 WL 3039117, at *1. The court denied defendant's motion based upon a lack of jurisdiction due to defendant's ineligibility for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582 because he was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Id. (citing Sanchez-Cordero v. United States, 317 F. App'x 267 (3d Cir. 2009) (finding the defendant was ineligible for a sentence reduction, because he was sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment)).

In the instant Motion, defendant again requests the court to lower his sentence of one hundred and twenty months to fifty-seven months based upon a new law signed by the "President of the United States . . . [m]aking [c]rack [c]ocaine v. [p]owder [c]ocaine equal." (Mot. 1 (ECF No. 103.)) Defendant argues that the new sentencing ratio of 18 to 1 between crack and powder cocaine will result in reducing his sentence from one hundred and twenty months to fifty-seven months. Defendant acknowledges that the new law was not made retroactive at the time he filed the Motion. Defendant does not specify the authority upon which he relies in support of the Motion. It appears to the court, however, that defendant's second request pursuant to § 3582 is based upon a retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act.

II. Standard of Review

Generally, a district court may not alter a criminal sentence of punishment once it has been imposed, and may only do so in limited circumstances. United States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207, 220 (3d Cir. 2008). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b), (c). Specifically, a district court is without authority to modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed absent "the Bureau of Prisons mov[ing]for a reduction, the Sentencing Commission amend[ing] the applicable Guidelines range, or another statute or Rule 35 expressly permits the court to do so." United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)).

III. Discussion

Smith argues that this court should apply retroactively the Fair Sentencing Act to reduce his mandatory minimum sentence and his guideline range for a term of imprisonment. The Fair Sentencing Act was enacted on August 3, 2010. The Fair Sentencing Act reduced penalties for crack cocaine offenses and directed the United States Sentencing Commission to review and within ninety days amend the advisory sentencing guidelines to account for the reductions. On November 1, 2010, the relevant amendments to the guidelines became effective. Under the statutory amendments, the mandatory minimum sentence to which Smith was subject would be lowered from ten years to five years and under the amendments to the guidelines the advisory guideline range for his term of imprisonment would be lowered to a term of imprisonment from one hundred months to a minimum term of sixty months.

Absent an express provision in the Fair Sentencing Act for retroactive application, a court must apply the penalties in place at the time the offense in issue was committed. See 1 U.S.C. ...


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.