Opinion
CASE NO. 5:12CR24
10-28-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DARNELL BUTCHER, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO , J. :
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Reduce his Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and Amendment 782. (Doc. 120). The Government filed a Response in Opposition. (Doc. 121). For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
In a Judgment dated February 6, 2013, the Court sentenced Defendant to 240 months imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. (Doc. 94). In doing so, the Court found Defendant to be a career offender within the meaning of the Guidelines. (Doc. 99, PageID: 1178). As such, the Court increased his total base offense level from 22 to 32. (Id.). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. (See Doc. 100).
Later, Defendant moved to vacate the conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 102). The Court denied Defendant's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 112) and the Sixth Circuit denied Defendant's request for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 117). Defendant appealed and the United States Supreme Court denied Defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari. (Doc. 119).
Defendant now moves to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Doc. 120). The Government opposes Defendant's request for a reduction. (Doc. 121).
Around the same time, Defendant filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (See Case No. 5:19CV2220, Doc. 1). In his Petition, Defendant makes the same argument he makes here—he is not a career offender because of the Sixth Circuit's decision in United States v. Montanez, 442 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2006). The Court summarily dismissed the Petition as outside the scope of § 2241. (Doc. 4). The Defendant asked the Court to alter this judgment (Doc. 6), which the Court denied (Doc. 10).
II. LAW & ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
Generally, Federal courts may not modify an individual's term of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). An exception to this general rule is contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Under this Section,
[A] defendant is eligible for a reduction in a sentence if: (1) the defendant 'has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission'; and (2) 'such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.'United States v. Cook, 870 F.3d 464, 467 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)).
Part one of this test requires the court to "review 'the Commission's instructions in [USSG] § 1B1.10 to determine the prisoner's eligibility for a sentence modification and the extent of the reduction authorized.'" Id. (quoting Dillion v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010)). "To satisfy the second requirement, a guidelines amendment must have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range." Id. (citations omitted).
"In 2014, the Commission passed Amendment 782, which lowered the base offense level for most drug trafficking crimes, and Amendment 788, which made Amendment 782 retroactive." United States v. Ferguson, 656 Fed. App'x 772, 774 (6th Cir. July 29, 2016) (citing United States v. Lucas, 636 Fed. App'x 296, 297-98 (6th Cir. Jan. 22, 2016). It is under these two Amendments that Defendant seeks relief. (See Doc. 120, PageID: 1387).
B. Eligibility for Reduction
Defendant is not eligible for a reduction based on Amendments 782 and 788 because he remains a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1. Defendants convicted of drug charges but sentenced as career offenders under § 4B1.1 are not eligible for reductions based on retroactive amendments to the drug-quantity guideline table. See United States v. Payton, 617 F.3d 911, 914 (6th Cir. 2010); Cook, 870 F.3d at 468-69 (collecting decision from the Sixth Circuit holding same). And Amendment 782 "does not impact the career offender Guidelines found in USSG § 4B1.1." Ferguson, 656 Fed. App'x at 774. Defendant appears to acknowledge this in his Motion.
To avoid dismissal however, Defendant argues the Court mistakenly classified Defendant as a career offender. He relies on the Sixth Circuit's decision in United States v. Montanez, 442 F.3d 485 (2006) to support his argument. And since he is not a career offender, Defendant claims that the Court can apply the Guideline Amendments to his Sentence.
Defendant's argument is without merit. The Supreme Court tells us that the scope of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings are limited in nature. Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827. Defendant's attack of his career-offender designation—as well as his attack on trial counsel—improperly broadens that scope. The Government is correct in arguing that Defendant should have brought these claims through either a direct appeal or a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly, the Court will not entertain Defendant's argument in this limited proceeding.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court sentenced Defendant as a career offender. He cannot challenge that designation under § 3582(c)(2). As such, the career-offender designation remains. Amendments 782 and 788 do not change this designation. And since Defendant's sentence was based on his status as a career offender, he is ineligible for the requested reduction and his Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
Senior United States District Judge Dated: October 28, 2020