Opinion
8:07CR184.
May 5, 2010
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the defendant's pro se motion requesting counsel and a sentence reduction, Filing No. 56. Clark seeks a reduction in his sentence because of his sincere remorse and his efforts to effect positive change while in prison and in apparent reliance on pending legislation designed to lessen the disparity in crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentences under mandatory minimum statutes.
Clark entered a plea of guilty to possession of with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine and was sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. Filing No. 51, Judgment. This court lacks authority to sentence below the mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (stating that the only authority for court to depart below statutory minimum sentence is in18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when government makes motion for substantial assistance or when defendant qualifies under safety-valve provision); United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (stating that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), "does not relate to statutorily-imposed sentences"). Further, the record shows that Clark was afforded the benefit of the crack/powder Guidelines amendment with respect to the calculation of his advisory Guidelines sentence. However, the Guidelines amendment does not affect Clark's sentence under the statute. The legislation on which Clark apparently relies in support of his position has not yet been enacted into law. Until Congress acts to reduce the disparity between crack and powder cocaine and reduce the statutory mandatory minimum sentences, this court is without authority to afford relief. In light of this disposition, the defendant's motion for appointment of counsel is moot. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion for a reduction in his sentence (Filing No. 56) is denied.
DATED this 5th day of May, 2010.
* This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.