United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DISMSSING MOTION FOR
SENTENCE REDUCTION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §
Stewart United States District Judge
Ted Stewart This matter is before the Court on
Defendant's Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). For the reasons discussed below,
the Court will dismiss the Motion for lack of jurisdiction.
October 8, 2014, Defendant was charged in an Indictment with
conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, possession of
methamphetamine with intent to distribute, using and carrying
a firearm during and in relation to drug trafficking crimes,
being a felon in possession of a firearm, and illegal
reentry. Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine and illegal reentry on February 2, 2015. In
the plea agreement, the parties agreed, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), to a sentence of 180
months. Defendant was sentenced on May 5, 2015, to a sentence
of 180 months in accordance with the plea agreement.
Defendant now seeks a reduction of his sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
3582(c)(2) provides that the Court may modify a term of
imprisonment “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.” This statute “establishes a two-step
inquiry.” First, the Court must consider whether a
prisoner is eligible for a sentence modification under
Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.10. If so, the Court must
determine whether a reduction is warranted after
consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
Guideline § 1B1.10 provides that a defendant may receive
a reduction if the guideline range applicable to that
defendant has subsequently been lowered by an amendment to
the Guidelines Manual. Defendant's Motion does not identify
which Amendment he believes makes him eligible for a
reduction. From the context of his Motion, however, it
appears that Defendant is seeking relief under Amendment 782.
782 “applies retroactively and reduces by two levels
many of the base offense levels for drug offenses assigned by
the drug-quantity table at USSG §
2D1.1(c).”However, Amendment 782 became effective on
November 1, 2014. As stated above, Defendant was sentenced
after that date. The Court sentenced Defendant using the 2014
Guidelines Manual, which incorporated Amendment 782.
Therefore, Defendant has already received all the benefit he
could have received from that Amendment and is not eligible
for relief under § 3582(c)(2).
support of his request, Defendant points to the recent
Supreme Court decision in Hughes v. United
States. In Hughes, the Supreme Court held
that Amendment 782 applied to defendants who had entered into
plea agreements under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
11(c)(1)(C) and, therefore, they may be eligible for relief
under § 3582(c)(2). Defendant's reliance on
Hughes is misplaced. While Defendant was sentenced
pursuant to an agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C), there is no
amendment to the Guidelines that would entitle Defendant to a
sentence reduction, for the reasons stated
above. Therefore, Defendant has failed to
demonstrate he is entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2)
and the Court must dismiss his Motion for lack of
therefore ORDERED that Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Docket No. 191) is DISMISSED
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).