ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RESENTENCING PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(2) & U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(C), DOC. NO. 47
J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On November 3, 2011, Defendant Adam Avila (“Defendant”) pled guilty to a one-count Indictment charging him with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. See Doc. Nos. 1 & 17. On February 25, 2013, Defendant was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1 to a 228 month term of incarceration. See Doc. Nos 43 & 45.
On April 6, 2015, Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for reduction of his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines (“Motion”), Doc. No. 47. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a district court may “modify an imposed 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.’” United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). “[A] reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . if: . . . the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(A).
The guideline sentencing range for drug offenses is usually (but not always) “determined under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), which correlates the length of the prison term with the quantity of drugs.” United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2009). Amendment 782, which became effective November 1, 2014, generally revised the Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1 downward by two levels. The Sentencing Commission further provided that Amendment 782 would apply retroactively to previously-sentenced defendants. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10(d), (e)(1).
But Amendment 782 did not lower the sentencing range for career offenders -- that is, career offenders are sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not § 2D1.1. See United States v. Charles, 749 F.3d 767, 770 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[R]etroactive amendments regarding sentences under the drug guidelines do not affect individuals who were sentenced as career offenders.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731 (determining that a career offender sentenced under a guideline range calculated pursuant to § 4B1.1 is not eligible for a sentence reduction based on an amendment revising downward the § 2D1.1 drug amount table).
Put differently, because Defendant was sentenced as a career offender, Amendment 782 does not lower his guideline range. See United States v. Thomas, 775 F.3d 982, 983 (8th Cir. 2014) (finding that a career offender’s guideline range is “unaffected by Amendment 782”); United States v. Daniels, 2015 WL 1228904, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2015) (“Amendment 782 does not lower the guideline range for career offenders because their offense level and guideline range are based on § 4B1.1(b), not § 2D1.1(c).”); Zeich v. United States, 2014 WL 6774878, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2014) (holding that career offender sentenced pursuant to § 4B1.1 is ineligible for sentence reduction based on Amendment 782).
Accordingly, the Motion for reduction of sentence based on ...