United States v. Nori
254 F. Supp. 3d 109
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- In 2014 Matthew J. Nori communicated online with an undercover officer about sexual acts with what Nori believed was an eight-year‑old and traveled to D.C. to meet; he was arrested and pleaded guilty to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct (18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)).
- The PSR calculated an offense level of 33 (Guidelines range 135–168 months); the Court sentenced Nori to 60 months’ imprisonment and 120 months supervised release.
- Nori, proceeding pro se, moved to reduce his sentence under various theories and sought transcripts and other documents; he challenged alleged disparity with another case, claimed lack of dangerousness, alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding an 8‑point enhancement, and alleged First Amendment error.
- The Government opposed; both parties agreed the motion should be considered under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
- The Court held § 3582(c) permits resentencing only in three narrow circumstances (BOP motion, Rule 35/other statute, or Sentencing Commission‑lowered Guidelines), none of which applies here, and denied all relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Nori) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may reduce Nori’s sentence | Relief not warranted because § 3582(c) authorizes reductions only in three narrow situations, none present | § 3582(c) permits the court to reduce sentence generally; alternative bases (disparity, §3553 factors) justify reduction | Denied: no statutory basis under §3582(c) for reduction |
| Applicability of §3582(c)(2) (Guidelines‑based reduction) | Inapplicable because the Guidelines range applicable to Nori has not been subsequently lowered | Nori contends §3582(c)(2) authorizes court to reduce sentence despite no guideline change | Denied: §3582(c)(2) requires a subsequent Sentencing Commission reduction; none occurred |
| Whether sentencing disparities or §3553 factors warrant §3582 relief | Disparity/§3553 arguments are not independent statutory bases under §3582 | Sentence is disproportionately harsh compared to a purported comparator; §3553(a)(6) disparity and lack of dangerousness justify reduction | Denied: disparity and §3553 factors are considered at original sentencing but do not create a §3582 ground for post‑judgment reduction |
| First Amendment / use of protected speech at sentencing | Court may consider speech as evidence of intent or conduct; no constitutional barrier to use of speech in sentencing | Court relied on Nori’s protected speech (comments about his daughter) in violation of First Amendment | Denied: Nori did not show the Court relied improperly; First Amendment does not bar evidentiary use of speech at sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (defendant eligible for §3582(c)(2) relief only if sentenced based on a Guidelines range subsequently lowered)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (§3582(c)(2) is a narrow exception to finality for Guidelines changes)
- Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (First Amendment does not prohibit evidentiary use of speech to establish crime elements, motive, or intent)
- United States v. Berry, 618 F.3d 13 (eligibility requirements for §3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Zaia, 751 F. Supp. 2d 132 (district courts lack inherent authority to modify sentences outside statutory exceptions)
- United States v. Butler, 130 F. Supp. 3d 317 (reaffirming narrow statutory limits on post‑sentencing modification)