United States v. Jones

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. BARSHALAI JONES, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Southern District of Georgia

Date published: Jun 27, 2023

4:20-cr-124 (S.D. Ga. Jun. 27, 2023)

Opinion

4:20-cr-124

06-27-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. BARSHALAI JONES, Defendant.

R. STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

R. STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendant Barshalai Jones has filed a pleading which the Court construes as a Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to the First Step Act. (Doc. 1233.) Jones moves for a sentence reduction "under the new cocaine base law that have [sic] been passed.” (Id. at p. 2.) While Jones seems to refer to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 in his Motion, it appears that he is seeking relief under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act. First Step Act, Pub. L. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018); see also, United States v. Edwards, 997 F.3d 1115 (11^th Cir. 2021) (discussing interaction between Section 404(b) and Section 3582(c)(1)(B), and (2) and holding that First Step Act is “selfcontained and self-executing” and that a motion may be brought under Section 404(b) of Act). However, Section 404(b) only authorizes the Court to reduce a sentence “in the circumstances specified in the statute.” Edwards, 997 F.3d at 1120. As explained by the Government in detail in its Response to Jones' Motion, this case does not present such circumstances. (See doc. 1242, pp. 6-7.) Specifically, Section 404(b) only permits the Court to reduce a crack-cocaine offender's sentence to align with the amended penalties of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 when the offender has not already received the benefit of the Fair Sentencing Act's reductions. See, United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290, 1297 (11th Cir. 2020), cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Lavell Jackson v. United States, 143 S.Ct. 72 (2022), and opinion reinstated on reconsideration sub nom. United States v. Jackson, 58 F.4th 1331 (11th Cir. 2023). Because Jones was sentenced more than a decade after enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act, he was already sentenced in accordance with the Act's reduced penalties. Accordingly, he has in essence already received the relief he seeks.

For these reasons as well as those spelled out in the Government's Response, the Court DENIES Jones' Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to the First Step Act. (Doc. 1233.)

SO ORDERED.