Opinion
Crim. No. 97-421
05-10-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHARLES VASQUEZ
ORDER
On January 8, 1999, Defendant Charles Vasquez pled guilty to various drug and weapons offenses before Judge Yohn, and was sentenced to 149 months imprisonment followed by 8 years of supervised release. (Doc. No. 24.) Following a Third Circuit remand, Judge Yohn resentenced Defendant to 84 months imprisonment followed by 8 years of supervised release. (Doc. Nos. 40, 41.)
On February 9, 2007, the Lancaster City Police Department charged Defendant with various drug offenses; on July 24, 2008, the Department charged him with theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property; and on September 21, 2009, the Department charged him with fleeing police and driving with a suspended license. (Doc. No. 51.) On March 4, 2010, Judge Madenspacher of the Lancaster County Court sentenced Defendant to 5 to 10 years imprisonment for these offenses. (Id.) On September 27, 2010, after a hearing, Judge Yohn revoked Defendant's supervised release and sentenced him to a term of 23 months imprisonment with no supervision to follow, to run consecutive with his state-court sentence. (Doc. No. 58.)
On September 10, 2015, Defendant filed a pro se Motion for Reduction of Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Guidelines Amendment 782. (Doc. No. 62.) On November 9, 2015, the matter was reassigned to me. (Doc. No. 64.) Because Defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction, I will deny his Motion.
Section 3582(c)(2) allows the Court to reduce Defendant's sentence only if, inter alia, "such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). I am not authorized to reduce a sentence imposed for a supervised-release violation because doing so would be inconsistent with the Commission's policy statement. See U.S.S.G § 1B1.10 (policy statement). The statement authorizes a sentence reduction only for a term of imprisonment that was imposed on the original offense; it "does not authorize a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 app. note 7(A) ("Only a term of imprisonment imposed as part of the original sentence is authorized to be reduced under this section."); see, e.g., United States v. Washington, No. CRIM. 03-72-02, 2015 WL 4094411, at *2 (W.D. Pa. July 7, 2015) (defendant ineligible for reduction of sentence imposed for violation of supervised release "because he is not serving a term of imprisonment that was part of his original sentence"). The Circuits agree that a defendant serving a sentence imposed for violating supervision is ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Cuff, 338 F. App'x 161, 164 (3d Cir. 2009); United States v. Nelson, 410 F. App'x 734, 735 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Morales, 590 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Fontenot, 583 F.3d 743, 744 (10th Cir. 2009); United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 589 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Holmes, 323 Fed.Appx. 848, 850 (11th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Thorne, 66 F. Supp. 3d 129, 133 (D.D.C. 2014).
Accordingly, I will deny Defendant's Motion.
AND NOW, this 10th day of May, 2016, upon consideration of Defendant's pro se Motion for Reduction of Sentence (Doc. No. 62), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Paul S . Diamond
Paul S. Diamond, J.