Opinion
05 CR 1042-01 (KMW).
May 8, 2009
Opinion and Order
Defendant Terence Monroe ("Monroe") argues that the Court should reduce his sentence from 70 months to 56 months, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines"). Section 3582(c)(2) permits a court to reduce a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission ("Commission"); Amendment 706 lowers the base offense level, and thus the applicable Guidelines sentencing range, for certain offenses involving cocaine base ("crack cocaine"). The Government agrees that Monroe is eligible for this sentence reduction, but argues that the reduction is not warranted because of Monroe's already lenient sentence and his post-sentencing conduct.
The Commission adopted Amendment 706 in order to reduce disparities between Guidelines sentences for offenses involving powder cocaine and those involving crack cocaine. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual supplement to app. C Amendment 706 (2008).
These disparities originated in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which established an "100-to-1 drug quantity ratio" in its mandatory minimum sentences for powder and crack cocaine. Pursuant to the Act, a drug trafficker dealing in crack cocaine is subject to the same mandatory minimum as one dealing in 100 times more powder cocaine. See Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558, 566-67 (2007).
The Commission then incorporated this drug quantity ratio into the Guidelines. As a result, Guidelines sentences for crack cocaine offenses prior to Amendment 706 were three to six times longer than those for powder cocaine offenses involving the same drug weight. See id.
The Commission has since concluded, however, that these disparities significantly undermine important sentencing objectives. According to the Commission, the 100-to-1 drug quantity ratio is problematic in many ways, including, inter alia, that it is based on faulty assumptions about the relative harmfulness of crack and powder cocaine; it often results in greater punishments for street level sellers than for importers and major traffickers; and it fosters disrespect for the criminal justice system because of its racial impact. See id. at 568.
Amendment 706 modestly reduces sentencing disparities for crack and powder cocaine offenses throughout the Guidelines.
For the reasons stated below, the Court reduces Monroe's sentence from 70 months to 56 months imprisonment.
I. Background
A. Conviction and Original Sentence
On September 29, 2006, Monroe pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
On May 4, 2007, the Court sentenced Monroe. Although Monroe's offense carries a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months, the Court found that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and Section 5C1.2 of the Guidelines, Monroe was eligible for safety value relief, and should accordingly be sentenced without regard to the statutory minimum. The Court then calculated Monroe's Guidelines sentencing range, which, at that time, was 87 to 108 months imprisonment.
Monroe's base offense level, based on a drug weight of 214 grams of crack cocaine, was 34. This base offense level was reduced two points because of Monroe's eligibility for safety valve relief, and further reduced by three points because of Monroe's acceptance of responsibility, for a total offense level of 29. Monroe's criminal history category was I, yielding a Guidelines range of 87 to 108 months imprisonment.
After fully considering all § 3553(a) factors, the Court concluded that a sentence below the Guidelines sentencing range was appropriate. The Court stated: "[t]he defendant suffered extraordinarily difficult conditions from the moment he was born. The defendant's lack of guidance is truly extraordinary and not taken into account by the Sentencing Guidelines." The Court sentenced Monroe to a term of 70 months imprisonment, a sentence approximately 20 percent below the bottom of the Guidelines sentencing range.
B. Amendment 706 and Monroe's Eligibility for Sentence Reduction
Amendment 706 became effective on November 1, 2007, and on March 3, 2008, the Commission authorized courts to retroactively reduce sentences in accordance with the amendment.
Pursuant to Amendment 706, Monroe's new Guidelines sentencing range is 70 to 87 months. Monroe's current sentence of 70 months is at the bottom of the amended range, a fact that raised a threshold question about Monroe's eligibility for a sentence reduction. On August 14, 2008, the Court, acting sua sponte, ordered the parties to brief Monroe's eligibility for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), in light of Amendment 706.
Monroe's base offense level is now 32, and his total offense level is 27. His criminal history category remains I, yielding an amended Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months.
In response to the Court's August 2008 Order, both the Government and Monroe submitted briefing agreeing that Monroe is eligible for a sentence reduction. The parties concur that because the Court originally sentenced Monroe to a term of imprisonment 20 percent below the bottom of his original Guidelines range, the Court now has the discretion to reduce Monroe's sentence to a term 20 percent below the bottom of the amended Guidelines range, which would be 56 months.
In most cases, determining whether a defendant is eligible for resentencing pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), Amendment 706, and the applicable Guidelines policy statement, Section 1B1.10, involves only a mechanical application of law to fact. In Monroe's case, however, this determination is complicated by the fact that Monroe was originally sentenced to a term of imprisonment below the bottom of the original Guidelines range, such that Monroe's current sentence is already at the bottom of the amended Guidelines range — a situation for which Section 1B1.10's guidance is ambiguous.
Section 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) states that "[i]f the original term of imprisonment imposed was less than the term of imprisonment provided by the guidelines range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing, a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range . . . may be appropriate." The section goes on to state, however, that "if the original term of imprisonment constituted a non-guideline sentence determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a further reduction generally would not be appropriate."
The Second Circuit has yet to clarify the distinction between a sentence that is "less than the term of imprisonment provided by the guidelines range," in which case "a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range may be appropriate"; and "a non-guideline sentence determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and United States v. Booker", in which case "a further reduction generally would not be appropriate." In the latter case, the Second Circuit has also not yet clarified when an exception should be made to the rule that a further reduction is "generally" not appropriate.
However, as noted above, the Court need not reach this question here because both parties agree that Monroe is eligible for a sentence reduction, and that the Court has the discretion to reduce Monroe's sentence to a term 20 percent less than the bottom of the amended Guidelines range.
C. Whether a Sentence Reduction is Warranted
Based on the parties' agreement on Monroe's eligibility, the Court, on October 8, 2008, ordered briefing on whether a sentence reduction is warranted, and if so, the extent of reduction warranted, in light of § 3553(a) factors, public safety considerations, and Monroe's post-sentencing conduct.
In response to the Court's October 2008 Order, the Government argues that a sentence reduction is not warranted both because Monroe has already received a sentence that is at the bottom of "even the amended Guidelines range"; and because Monroe's disciplinary record during his incarceration "suggests that [Monroe] is a poor candidate for earlier release." Specifically, the Government proffers evidence that in October 2007 Monroe chose to enter into an ongoing fight among several other inmates. In the course of the fight, Monroe allegedly punched one of those inmates in the back of the head, as that inmate was attempting to comply with a prison official's order to lie on the floor and submit to hand restraints.
In his briefing to the Court, Monroe admits that he participated in this fight, but argues that one relatively minor altercation in approximately three and a half years of incarceration is insufficient reason to deny him the benefit of Amendment 706. Monroe points out that the fight did not involve weapons, and that he has already been punished for the incident by the loss of 27 days of good conduct time.
In support of his contention that his sentence should be reduced to 56 months, Monroe emphasizes the Court's original finding that he deserved a below-Guidelines sentence because of "the extraordinarily difficult conditions" of his childhood. Monroe also notes that at the time of his sentencing, the Probation Department recommended a sentence of only 60 months, even lower than the sentence the Court ultimately imposed, because of Monroe's history and characteristics. Accordingly, Monroe argues that he should receive a sentence below the amended Guidelines range, because the Guidelines, as amended, still do not account for his personal circumstances.
Finally, Monroe points out that after his release from prison, he will remain on supervised release for four years. The Court will thus long retain the ability to monitor Monroe's progress, even if the Court reduces his sentence.
II. Analysis
The parties agree that Monroe is eligible for a sentence reduction, and that the Court has the discretion to reduce Monroe's sentence to as low as 56 months. The Court thus need only decide whether such a reduction is warranted.
The Court concludes that a sentence reduction is warranted, and that Monroe's sentence should be reduced to 56 months.
A. Legal Standard
1. Section 3582(c)(2)
As a general rule, a court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed. Section 3582(c)(2), however, provides a narrow exception to this rule. Pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), a court may modify a term of imprisonment after its imposition "in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission."
In such a case, the court "may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
2. Section 3553(a) Factors
In determining whether a sentence reduction is warranted, a court must consider § 3553(a) factors. Section 3553(a) states that a court "shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to fulfill certain penological purposes, specifically, the need for the sentence imposed (1) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (2) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (3) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (4) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.
In determining the sentence that is "sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to fulfill these penological objectives, a court must consider (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the penological purposes stated above; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established by the Guidelines; (5) any applicable Guidelines policy statement; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
3. Guidelines Section 1B1.10
In determining whether a sentence reduction is warranted, a court must also consider Guidelines Section 1B1.10, the applicable policy statement, which limits the circumstances under which, and the extent to which, a court may reduce a sentence based on an amendment to the Guidelines.
The Commentary to Section 1B1.10 provides that in determining whether a sentence reduction is warranted, a court must consider "the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment." In addition, a court may consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant that occurred after imposition of the original term of imprisonment. In this case, the Court considers Monroe's conduct, but only to the extent that it impacts the Court's analysis of the § 3553(a) factors or the public safety considerations posed by a reduction in Monroe's sentence.
B. Application
After fully considering the § 3553(a) factors, public safety considerations, and Monroe's post-sentencing conduct, the Court concludes that Monroe's sentence should be reduced to 56 months.
The Court originally sentenced Monroe to a term of imprisonment 20 percent below the bottom of the Guidelines range. In determining this sentence, the Court considered the § 3553(a) factors, and concluded that the advisory Guidelines range did not adequately account for Monroe's history and characteristics.
The Commission has now, based on years of research, determined that its previous sentencing ranges for crack cocaine offenses were based on faulty assumptions about the harmfulness of crack cocaine relative to other drugs. The Commission therefore adopted Amendment 706 as a remedial measure. The Court accepts, as it must, these amended guidelines as a § 3553(a) factor.
In determining the appropriate post-Amendment sentence for Monroe, the Court begins with the recommended Guidelines range. However, this amended range — although based on improved information about the relative harmfulness of crack cocaine —still does not account for Monroe's unique history and characteristics. The Court stated at Monroe's sentencing that the "the defendant's lack of guidance is truly extraordinary and not taken into account by the Sentencing Guidelines," and this statement remains as true after Amendment 706 as before.
The Court therefore finds that the appropriate amended sentence for Monroe again requires an approximately 20 percent downward departure from the bottom of the amended Guidelines range, i.e. 56 months.
Furthermore, contrary to the Government's argument, Monroe's post-sentencing conduct does not weigh against this reduction in Monroe's sentence. Although courts have denied § 3582(c)(2) motions because of a defendant's conduct in prison, courts in the Southern District of New York tend to require that such conduct meet a threshold level of seriousness in order to deny a motion on those grounds. Compare United States v. Davis, 577 F. Supp. 2d 665, 667 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (finding that a sentence reduction wasnot warranted because the defendant, while in custody, repeatedly stabbed a corrections officer in the head and neck with a sharpened piece of metal that has been fashioned into a knife-like weapon), with United States v. Marzouca, No. 88-CR-0377 (CPS), 2008 WL 2169517, *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2008) (finding that a sentence reduction was warranted even though the defendant had been disciplined 16 times over a 20-year term of incarceration, both because most of the incidents were not serious, and because the most serious incident, assault causing serious injury to a fellow inmate, occurred over 14 years before the defendant filed his motion). The Court finds that Monroe's post-sentencing conduct, although troubling, does not meet this threshold level.
In his three and a half years in prison, the Government points to Monroe's involvement in only one violent incident. This incident did not involve weapons and did not result in serious injury. It does not cause this Court to significantly change its previous evaluation of Monroe's character, and similarly, it does not cause the Court to find that a reduction in Monroe's sentence would pose a danger to any particular person or to the community.
For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that it should reduce Monroe's sentence to a term of 56 months imprisonment.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court REDUCES Monroe's sentence to a term of 56 months imprisonment.
SO ORDERED.