United States v. Thompson
254 F. Supp. 3d 227
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Thompson pleaded guilty (Aug. 8, 2011) to one count of unlawful distribution of phencyclidine, admitted responsibility for between 100g and <400g.
- At sentencing (Mar. 1, 2012) the Court calculated a total offense level of 23, Criminal History Category III, and imposed 60 months' imprisonment (Guidelines range 57–71 months).
- The Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 782 (Nov. 2014), lowering drug offense base levels by two points; Thompson’s adjusted total offense level would drop from 23 to 21, producing a Guidelines range of 46–57 months.
- Thompson moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 seeking an 11–14 month reduction.
- The Court conducted the two-step § 3582(c)(2) analysis: (1) eligibility and amended range (Thompson is eligible and range is 46–57 months); (2) discretionary review of § 3553(a) factors and post‑sentencing conduct.
- The Court denied the motion, citing Thompson’s 13‑month escape from a residential reentry center and subsequent criminal conduct while serving the sentence as weighing heavily against a discretionary reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thompson is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 | Thompson: Amendment 782 lowered his applicable Guidelines range, so he is eligible for relief | Government: (implicit) eligibility must be determined under § 1B1.10 and Dillon framework | Held: Eligible — amended range is 46–57 months (offense level 21, CHC III) |
| Whether the court should exercise discretion to reduce Thompson's sentence | Thompson: Seeks reduction of 11–14 months consistent with amended range | Court/Government: Court should consider § 3553(a) factors and post‑sentencing conduct when deciding discretion | Held: Denied — court declined to reduce sentence after weighing § 3553(a) factors and post‑sentencing misconduct |
| Relevance of post‑sentencing conduct (escape and later firearm offense) to § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Thompson: Requested reduction despite conduct | Government/Court: Post‑sentencing misconduct is a relevant factor under § 1B1.10 and § 3553(a) | Held: Court found the 13‑month escape and subsequent conviction dispositive against reduction |
| Scope of § 3582(c)(2) proceeding (plenary resentencing vs. limited inquiry) | Thompson: Sought reduction under the limited § 3582(c)(2) process | Government: § 3582(c)(2) is not a plenary resentencing; court may deny on discretionary grounds | Held: Court applied the limited two‑step Dillon inquiry and exercised discretion to deny relief |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kennedy, 722 F.3d 439 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (§ 3582(c)(2) sentence‑modification relief is discretionary)
- United States v. Wyche, 741 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (§ 3582(c)(2) is a limited proceeding, not a plenary resentencing)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (establishes the two‑step eligibility and discretionary framework for § 3582(c)(2) reductions)