United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
OPINION AND ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Defendant, Jermaine Askia Cooper, has filed a
“Letter-Motion For Reduction/Modification of Supervised
Release Terms & Sentence for Good Cause” [ECF No.
201]. By way of introduction, the Letter-Motion
asks that the Court consider any and all matters which have
occurred subsequently to his sentencing initially or which
have been overlooked, or which the USSG Guidelines amendments
and changes in laws subsequently may have created
“wiggle room” for the court to impose lesser and
more appropriate specific sentence which is sufficient but
not more than what is required to meet the purposes of
punishment under the relevant laws.
(Letter-Motion 1.) The Letter-Motion presents argument
related to supervised release, uncredited pretrial time, and
Guideline ambiguity. On August 12, 2016, the Government filed
a Response [ECF No. 204] opposing the Defendant's
requested relief. The Defendant has not filed a reply.
reasons stated in this Opinion, the Court finds that there is
no basis upon which to modify the Defendant's sentence.
jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of possession of a
firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 7),
possession and distribution of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5), and obstruction of
justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) (Count 8).
amount of drugs involved in the Defendant's offense of
conviction, as noted in the Presentence Investigation Report
was determined to be 263.6 kilograms of marijuana (after
conversion of multiple substances). The Guideline computation
was based on the most serious offense level, in this case,
the drug counts. The sentences in Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8
were all grouped for sentencing purposes. As a result, the
Defendant's total offense level was 34, his criminal
history category was V and the sentencing range was 235 to
293 months. However, the maximum sentence in Counts 1, 3, 4,
and 8 was capped at 240 months. The Court sentenced the
Defendant to a term of 240 months for the drug and
obstruction counts, and 265 months for Count 5, which was 30
months above the low end of the Guideline sentence, and 120
months for Count 7. All counts were to run concurrent.
August 6, 2015, the Defendant requested a reduction of his
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and
Amendment 782 [ECF No. 192]. Under the amended Guidelines,
the Defendant's range of imprisonment was 188 to 235
months. The Court reduced the Defendant's sentence to 211
months for Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 [Order, ECF No. 199].
Defendant's Letter-Motion presents various requests for
relief. Although he does not present specific argument
related to Guideline amendments, the Letter-Motion also
identifies 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) as a potential source
of relief. Additionally, the Defendant requests that the
terms of his supervised release be revised because they were
not tailored to him, or were overbroad. The Defendant also
complains that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has not credited
him with all the time he is due. Finally, he submits that
changes brought about by the Supreme Court's decision in
Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015),
might apply to the Guidelines or laws under which he was
3582(c)(2) is an exception to the rule that courts have
limited authority to modify a term of imprisonment once it is
imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Subsection
(c)(2) is an exception for defendants who were
“sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission.” Id. § 3582(c)(2);
see also United States v. Stevenson, 749 F.3d 667,
669 (7th Cir. 2014) (noting that a court may reduce a
sentence under § 3582(c)(2) “if (1) the original
sentence was ‘based on' a subsequently lowered
sentencing range and (2) the reduction is consistent with the
policy statements issued by the Commission”).
the Defendant has already received a sentence reduction
pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782, he cannot
obtain further relief under that Amendment. The Seventh
Circuit has held that defendants “are not entitled to
more than one opportunity to request a lower sentence, for
any given change in the Guideline range” United
States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2011)
(“Once the district judge makes a decision, Rule 35
applies and curtails any further power of revision, unless
the Commission again changes the Guidelines and makes that
change, too, retroactive.”). Further, as the Government
points out, § 3582 reductions are not resentencings.
See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010)
(holding that judges are not required to conduct a full
resentencing in response to a § 3582(c)(2) motion).
Thus, the Defendant “cannot use this statute to attempt
to benefit from an array of cases that were handed down after
his sentencing, especially when he has not ...