United States District Court, D. Maryland
J. MESSITTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Webster, pro se, has filed a Motion to Reduce
Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), relying on
Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. ECF No. 56.
The Court finds he is ineligible for a reduction pursuant to
Amendment 782 because he was sentenced as a career offender.
Accordingly, the Court will DENY his Motion.
16, 2005, Webster pled guilty to one count of Possession with
Intent to Distribute 50 or More Grams of a Mixture or
Substance Containing a Detectable Amount Cocaine Base in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). ECF No. 21 at 1;
Presentence Report at ¶ 2. At sentencing, the Court
adopted the factual findings and advisory guideline
applications in the Presentence Report (PSR), which
established that Webster was a career offender under U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.1. ECF No. 59 at 8; Presentence Report at ¶
21. His total offense level was 34 and his criminal history
was VI, producing a guideline range of 262 to 327 months in
custody. ECF No. 59 at 8; Statement of Reasons at 1. The
Court sentenced Webster to the low end of the guidelines
range - 262 months - and 5 years of supervised release. ECF
No. 59 at 16; ECF No. 21 at 2-3.
then, Webster has filed several Motions to Reduce and a
Motion to Vacate his sentence, all of which the Court has
denied. On September 4, 2015, he filed the present
Motion, seeking a reduction in his sentence pursuant to
Amendment 782. ECF No. 56. On February 27, 2017, the
Government filed its opposition to the Motion. ECF No. 65.
Webster has filed no reply. Webster also filed a Motion to
Appoint Counsel on April 19, 2017. ECF No. 66.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), “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” may file a motion asking the Court to
reduce his sentence. The Court may reduce the defendant's
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.”
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
782, effective November 1, 2014, reduced by two levels the
base offense level in the Advisory Guidelines under §
2D1.1 for certain drug offenses. See U.S. Sentencing
Commission, Guidelines Manual 2016, Supplement to Appendix C,
Amendment 782. However, Amendment 782 did not have the effect
of reducing the sentence for a career offender sentenced
under § 4B1.1. That is because “a reduction in the
defendant's term of imprisonment is not authorized under
18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with this policy
statement if . . . the amendment does not have the effect of
lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range
because of the operation of another guideline or statutory
provision.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, Application Note
1(a) (emphasis added); United States v. France, 637
F. Appx 733, 734 (4th Cir. 2016) (holding that “a
district court lacks the authority to grant a §
3582(c)(2) motion for a reduced sentence under Amendment 782
if the defendant seeking the reduction was sentenced pursuant
to the career offender Guideline”).
same reasons he was ineligible for a sentence reduction under
Amendments 706 and 750, Webster is not eligible for a
reduction under Amendment 782. He was sentenced as a career
offender under § 4B1.1. Section 4B1.1 operates as
“another guideline” that makes Amendment 782
inapplicable to Webster. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, Application
Note 1(a); United States v. Davis, No. 00-0424, ECF
No. 702 at 2 (D. Md. Aug. 2016). None of the exceptions to
this rule apply here. There is no indication from Webster's
Presentence Report or any other source that he received
“any downward departure from his Advisory Guidelines
range based on substantial assistance to authorities.”
Davis, No. 00-0424, ECF No. 702 at 3 (D. Md. Aug.
2016). Thus, Webster does not qualify for the exception to
§ 1B1.10's general prohibition against sentence
reductions for career offenders, and is not eligible for a
sentence reduction under Amendment 782.
above reasons, Webster's Motion to Reduce Sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), ECF No. 56, is DENIED. A separate
Order will ISSUE.
 Between 2008 and 2016, Webster filed
three Motions to Reduce Sentence and a Motion to Vacate. The
first Motion to Reduce (ECF No. 38) was based on Amendment
706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, and the second and third
Motions to Reduce (ECF Nos. 49, 52) were based on Amendment
750. The Court denied all three Motions to Reduce because
Webster's sentence was “based on” a
sentencing range calculated under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not
on § 2D1.1, so the amendments did not apply.
Webster's Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 62) challenged ...