387 F. Supp. 3d 1397
S.D. Fla.2019Background
- Razz was convicted in 2006 of maintaining a place for crack manufacture/use and two crack distribution counts; jury found relevant quantities for Counts Two (≥50 g) and Three (≥5 g).
- A §851 information alleged six prior felony drug convictions, triggering enhanced statutory penalties; PSR treated Razz as a Career Offender, producing a guideline range of 360 months to life and Judge Ryskamp imposed life (later commuted to 360 months by presidential clemency in 2016).
- Razz moved under Section 404 of the First Step Act to reduce his sentence; the Court denied relief in May 2019 because Razz remained a Career Offender and subject to the §851 enhancement, leaving the commuted 360-month term at the bottom of the (new) guideline range.
- Razz filed a motion for reconsideration arguing the Court failed to consider reduction of his supervised release terms under the First Step Act.
- The Court exercised discretion to address supervised release reduction and held that §3582(c)(1)(B) authorizes reduction only of a "term of imprisonment," not supervised release; it therefore denied reconsideration and left supervised release at the original concurrent 10 years (3/10/8 years by count).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may reduce supervised release under the First Step Act via 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(B) | Razz: Court can reduce supervised release under §404 First Step Act when recalculating penalties retroactively | Government: Razz did not seek supervised-release relief in original motion; reconsideration cannot present new arguments | Court: §3582(c)(1)(B) applies only to "term of imprisonment," not supervised release; no authority to reduce supervised release, so motion denied |
| If court had authority, whether to exercise it to reduce supervised release | Razz: Requests concurrent total of 8 years supervised release (3/8/6) citing Fair Sentencing Act reduced minima and rehabilitation efforts | Government: Opposed as untimely/new; also argued merits support no reduction | Court: Even if authorized, declines to reduce; keeps 10-year term based on offense conduct, extensive criminal history, commission while on conditional release, and prison disciplinary history |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (finality of judgment and limits on post‑sentence modification)
- Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) (interpretation principle: inclusion/omission in statute presumed intentional)
- Phillips v. United States, 597 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (§3582(c) narrowly limits district court authority to modify imprisonment terms)
- United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905 (11th Cir. 2003) (limited statutory exceptions to modifying final sentences)
- United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2003) (Rule 60(b) not available to revisit criminal orders)
- United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 1998) (limitations on post-judgment relief in criminal cases)
- United States v. West, 898 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir. 1990) (supervised release is a separate element of sentence)