UNITED STATES v. DIGGS (2024)

ORDER

Defendant Reggie Diggs (“Defendant”) has filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Dkt. 63). Defendant, who pleaded guilty pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement calling for a 57-month prison sentence (at the low end of the calculated Sentencing Guidelines range), seeks a reduction in his sentence because Part A of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines would now place him at a criminal history category II as opposed to a criminal history category III. This change is due to a two-point reduction in the criminal history points because even though Defendant committed the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence, he has less than seven criminal history points. The resulting Sentencing Guideline range with the new criminal history category is 51 to 63 months (based on an offense level of 23 and criminal history category of II) as opposed to the prior calculation of 57 to 71 months. (See Dkt. 65). The government opposes the motion. (Dkt. 66).

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2):

in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.

Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, a court “may” reduce a defendant's prison sentence where the Sentencing Guideline range is reduced pursuant to Part A of Amendment 821, as in Defendant's case. Application Note 1(B) provides that a court “shall consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)” and “shall consider the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment” when determining whether a reduction is warranted and the extent of any such reduction. (emphasis added). The same Application Note also provides that a court “may consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant that occurred after imposition of the term of imprisonment in determining: (I) whether a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is warranted; and (II) the extent of such reduction ․” (emphasis added). In other words, while post-sentence rehabilitative efforts may be considered by a court, they are not required to be considered (unlike the § 3553(a) factors and dangerousness risks).

In considering the instant motion, the Court has considered the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)¹ and the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that may be posed by a reduction in Defendant's term of imprisonment. In that regard, Defendant was described in the initial presentence investigation report as the primary supplier of fentanyl with regards to the drug trafficking organization described therein. (See Dkt. 53 at ¶ 22). Execution of a search warrant at Defendant's primary residence recovered suspected drugs (including cocaine and fentanyl), drug paraphernalia, and over $36,000 in cash. (See id. at ¶ 66). Defendant, who is currently 41 years old, has a lengthy criminal history, including prior drug trafficking convictions and convictions for firearms offenses. (Id. at ¶¶ 87-97). The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant's personal background and history, including his substance abuse and employment history. (See generally id. at ¶¶ 121-37). The Court has also reviewed Defendant's behavior while incarcerated, which is a positive factor in favor of Defendant's pending motion and one that may be considered by the Court. (See Dkt. 65 at ¶ 7).

Based on its consideration of all the relevant factors, the Court concludes that a sentence reduction is not warranted in this case. Defendant's sentence is in the middle of the range of the new Sentencing Guideline calculation, and particularly in view of the dangerousness of the offense conduct and Defendant's history and characteristics, the Court continues to believe that the sentence initially imposed is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the objectives of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Therefore, Defendant's motion (Dkt. 63) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Among the 3553(a) factors considered by the Court are the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of Defendant; the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect the public from further crimes of Defendant, and to provide Defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; the kinds of sentences available; the newly calculated Sentencing Guideline range; the policy statement set forth at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and the relevant Application Note; and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, Chief Judge