U.S. v. Willis

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL K. WILLIS, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: Aug 6, 2007

Crim. No. 3-94-133 (D. Minn. Aug. 6, 2007)

Opinion

Crim. No. 3-94-133.

August 6, 2007

ORDER

RICHARD KYLE, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's self-styled submission entitled "Motion Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), For A Modification Of An Imposed Term Of Imprisonment Consistent With 18 USC 3553(a)." (Docket No. 207.) Defendant contends that his sentence should be reduced, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), because of a post-sentencing amendment to a section of the Sentencing Guidelines that affected his sentence. The amendment at issue, known as "Amendment 674," modifies § 4B1.4 of the Guidelines, which applies to convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

Amendment 674 was not adopted until long after Defendant was sentenced, and it is well-established that the Amendment is not retroactively applicable. United States v. Czeck, 172 Fed.Appx. 687 (8^th Cir. 2006) (unpublished opinion); United States v. Ross, 165 Fed.Appx. 473, 474 (7^th Cir. 2006) (unpublished opinion);United States v. Johnson, 160 Fed.Appx. 854, 856 (11^th Cir. 2005) (unpublished opinion). Therefore, Defendant's sentence cannot be reduced pursuant to Amendment 674.

As the District Court Judge succinctly explained in the Czeck case —

"The Guidelines explicitly list amendments that justify consideration of a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) (policy statement) (Nov. 1, 2004). Amendment 674 is not listed, so no reduction is authorized."¹

1 United States v. Czeck, Crim. No. 4-95-96 (JMR/FLN), (D.Minn. 2005), (Rosenbaum, C.J.), Order dated June 27, 2005, [Docket No. 106], p. 2.

In sum, the Sentencing Commission has not identified Amendment 674 as a retroactively applicable amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. Therefore, Amendment 674 cannot be applied to Defendant's case, and Defendant's motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) must be denied.

Based upon the foregoing, and all of the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Defendant's "Motion Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), For A Modification Of An Imposed Term Of Imprisonment Consistent With 18 USC 3553(a)," (Docket No. 207), is DENIED.