United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF
SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) &
AMENDMENT 782 (ECF No. 30)
GILLMOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Rohsaan Matthews, proceeding pro se, has filed a Motion
seeking a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the
United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant is not
eligible to receive a reduction.
Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 (ECF No. 30) is
August 19, 2015, Defendant Rohsaan Matthews was charged in an
Information (ECF No. 1) as follows:
1 for knowingly and intentionally conspiring to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute a quantity
of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers and salts of its
isomers, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).
August 27, 2015, Defendant Matthews pled guilty to Count 1 of
the Information pursuant to a Memorandum of Plea Agreement
(“Plea Agreement”). (ECF No. 8).
January 22, 2016, Defendant Matthews was sentenced to 78
months imprisonment. (ECF No. 27).
Matthews did not appeal his conviction or his sentence.
January 7, 2019, Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed Motion
for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782. (ECF No. 30).
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) authorizes district courts, in some
circumstances, to 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); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 994(o).
United States Supreme Court has interpreted 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) as establishing a two-step inquiry. Dillon v.
United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010).
the Court must determine if a defendant is eligible for a
sentence reduction based on a guideline that has been lowered
by the Sentencing Commission after the date the ...