From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Gentry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON
Mar 11, 2016
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:12-127-KKC (E.D. Ky. Mar. 11, 2016)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:12-127-KKC

03-11-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RONALD LEE GENTRY, Defendant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

*** *** ***

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Ronald Lee Gentry's motion (DE 148) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The amendment reduces by two the offense levels assigned in the Drug Quantity Table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, resulting in lower guideline ranges for most drug trafficking offenses.

Gentry pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute Oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. (DE 138, Judgment). According to the presentence report, the defendant's Base Offense Level under then-existing U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 was 12. However, the presentence report provided that Gentry's prior felony convictions qualified him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, with an enhanced offense level of 31. Gentry's advisory guideline range, as a career offender, was 188 to 235 months. The Court granted a downward departure and sentenced the defendant to 120 months of imprisonment (DE 138, Judgment).

Gentry is not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. Once a defendant is determined to be a career offender under § 4B1.1, the career offender guideline range controls if it is greater than the initial advisory guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). In this case, the Court calculated Gentry's sentence based on the career offender guidelines and then departed downward from that range. When a sentencing range is derived from § 4B1.1 and not the Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1, Amendment 782 does not apply. See United States v. Thompson, 714 F.3d 946, 949 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding previous amendments to drug quantity table did not apply to lower sentence of career offender); see, e.g., United States v. Sullivan, No. 5:14-cr-7-06, 2015 WL 1524089, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 3, 2015) (finding defendant not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because his sentencing range was determined by his career offender status); United States v. Nicholson, No. 3:11-194, 2015 WL 403997, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2015) (same).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion for a sentence reduction (DE 148) is DENIED.

Dated March 11, 2016.

/s/

KAREN K. CALDWELL, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY


Summaries of

United States v. Gentry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON
Mar 11, 2016
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:12-127-KKC (E.D. Ky. Mar. 11, 2016)
Case details for

United States v. Gentry

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RONALD LEE GENTRY, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON

Date published: Mar 11, 2016

Citations

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:12-127-KKC (E.D. Ky. Mar. 11, 2016)