United States v. Hargrove
5:13-cr-00175-D
E.D.N.C.May 19, 2017Background
- Jasmine Hargrove pleaded guilty (Aug. 26, 2013) to conspiracy to distribute/possess with intent to distribute heroin pursuant to a written plea agreement.
- At sentencing (Dec. 5, 2013) the court adopted the PSR, calculated total offense level 29, criminal history II, and imposed 121 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
- Hargrove moved for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on U.S.S.G. Amendment 782 (filed Nov. 17, 2015); she also filed a pro se motion invoking Amendment 794 (Nov. 4, 2016).
- Under Amendment 782 Hargrove’s recalculated guideline range would be 78–97 months (offense level 27, CHC II); she sought a 97‑month sentence based on post‑sentencing conduct.
- The court found Hargrove’s offense involved serious heroin and firearms conduct, gang association, recidivism, poor supervision history, and limited work history, though acknowledged some positive in‑custody steps.
- The court denied both motions: refused a § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 782 and found Amendment 794 not listed as retroactive under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should reduce Hargrove’s sentence under Amendment 782 (§ 3582(c)(2)) | Hargrove asked for a reduced sentence to 97 months based on the lower guideline range and post‑sentencing rehabilitation | Government opposed reduction; argued original sentence appropriate given offense severity and history | Denied — court exercised discretion and found current sentence already sufficient but not greater than necessary; further reduction would threaten public safety |
| Whether Amendment 794 is retroactive and permits a § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Hargrove asserted Amendment 794 warranted a sentence reduction | Government (and guideline policy) argued Amendment 794 is not listed as retroactive under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) | Denied — Amendment 794 is not retroactive; no basis for reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (discussing district court discretion in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (post‑sentencing rehabilitation may be considered at resentencing)
- United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. treatment of § 3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Maiorino, 709 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. approach to retroactive guideline amendments and reductions)
- United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. precedent on sentence reduction discretion)