United States v. Cook
Criminal No. 2007-0153
| D.D.C. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Ronald Cook pled guilty (Oct. 3, 2008) to conspiracy to distribute >1 kg PCP and >1 kg heroin under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841.
- At sentencing (Mar. 23, 2009) the Court calculated a Guidelines range of 168–210 months but accepted a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea and imposed 162 months.
- The Sentencing Commission later lowered most drug offense base offense levels by two (Amendment 782), producing a 135–168 month Guidelines range for Cook.
- Cook moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction (or time served), invoking the retroactive Amendment.
- Government opposed, arguing Cook was ineligible because his sentence was imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement and the Court did not base the sentence on the Guidelines; alternatively, it argued a reduction would be unwarranted.
- The Court found Cook eligible (the Guidelines informed the sentence) but denied a reduction after weighing § 3553(a) factors (serious offense conduct, mature age, prior drug conviction outweighing post-sentencing rehabilitation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cook is eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief despite a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea | Government: Ineligible because sentence was not "based on" the Guidelines; Court approved plea as standalone deal | Cook: Eligible because the Court calculated and relied on the Guidelines range when evaluating and accepting the plea | Court: Eligible — the Guidelines were a relevant part of the analytical framework used to determine the sentence |
| Whether a sentence reduction is warranted under § 3582(c)(2) and § 3553(a) | Government: Even if eligible, reduction unwarranted given offense seriousness and defendant's history | Cook: Post-sentencing conduct and rehabilitation support a reduced sentence or time served | Court: Denied reduction — § 3553(a) factors (large-scale PCP/heroin distribution, firearm, mature age, prior drug conviction) outweigh rehabilitation |
| Scope of any reduction (applicable Guidelines range) | Government: Acknowledged amended range but emphasized discretionary denial | Cook: Seeks reduction consistent with amended range (135–168 months) | Court: Recognizes amended range but declines to reduce sentence on discretionary grounds |
| Consideration of post-sentencing conduct | Government: Post-sentencing conduct insufficient to warrant reduction | Cook: Points to courses and rehabilitation in custody in support of reduction | Court: Credits post-sentencing conduct but finds it insufficient to overcome the gravity of original conduct and criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (two-step inquiry for § 3582(c)(2) reductions and applicability of Guidelines policy statements)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (plurality) (definition of when a sentence is "based on" the Guidelines)
- United States v. Epps, 707 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence can be eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief when court relied on Guidelines)
- In re Sealed Case, 722 F.3d 361 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (a Guidelines range is "a relevant part" of the analytical framework if the judge used it to determine the sentence or approve the agreement)
- United States v. Duvall, 209 F. Supp. 3d 125 (D.D.C. 2016) (consideration of mature age and criminal history in weighing § 3553(a) factors)