Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantpleamotionadoptionsentencing guidelineslife imprisonmentpiracy

defendantpleamotionprobationsentencing guidelinespiracy

Related Cases

United States v. Bobby Dee Countryman, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2016 WL 6277804

Facts

In 2001, Countryman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, resulting in a sentence of 300 months under a Rule 11(e)(1)(C) plea agreement. The presentence report indicated that he was accountable for at least 19 kilograms of methamphetamine, leading to a total offense level of 48, capped at 43 due to sentencing guidelines. After the adoption of Amendment 782, which retroactively lowered base offense levels, Countryman filed a motion for a sentence reduction.

In 2001 Countryman, one of eighteen defendants named in the original indictment, pleaded guilty to the offense of conspiracy to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 .

Issue

Is Countryman eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines?

Rule

A court may modify a sentence if the defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, as per 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes a court to modify a sentence “ ‘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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o) .’ ”

Analysis

The court determined that Countryman was not eligible for a sentence reduction because his original sentence of 300 months was lower than both the old and new guideline ranges, which provided for life imprisonment. Even with the amended base offense level, his total offense level remained capped at 43, resulting in a guideline range of life in prison, which did not warrant a reduction.

Countryman is not eligible for a sentence reduction. As the court has explained above, the PSR determined that Countryman was accountable for at least 19 kilograms of methamphetamine, resulting in a base offense level of 38. See PSR ¶ 71 (citing U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) ). After ten levels were added for specific offense characteristics, the total offense level became 48, which was capped at offense level 43, as the Guidelines require.

Conclusion

The court denied Countryman's motion for a reduction of sentence, both because he was ineligible and because it chose not to exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence.

The court therefore concludes that Countryman is not entitled to a sentence reduction because the amended guideline does not have the effect of reducing his guideline range, as capped by the Rule 11(e)(1)(C) plea agreement.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court found that Countryman was ineligible for a sentence reduction and chose not to reduce his sentence in its discretion.

The government agrees with the probation office, and it asks the court to deny Countryman's motion.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Sycamore Industrial Park Associates v. Ericsson, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 1030298, 65 ERC 1341

Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell, 176 F.Supp.3d 975

Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 67 ERC 1393, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,777, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,954

United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Auchter, 763 F.2d 728, 53 USLW 2607, 15 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,545, 12 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1337, 1984-1985 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 27,293

Buckley v. United States., 389 U.S. 929, 88 S.Ct. 289 (Mem), 19 L.Ed.2d 280