United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Denying Motion to Reduce Sentence (Doc. 106) and
Motion for Modification and Reduction of Sentence
(Doc. 110) filed by Defendant, Bobby Donahue. The
Government opposes both motions. (Docs. 121, 123). For the
following reasons, Defendant's motions are
pleaded guilty to a four-count superseding indictment on June
7, 2006. (Doc. 42). On March 20, 2008, the Court sentenced
Defendant to a term of imprisonment of 210 months on each
count, to run consecutively, followed by a five-year term of
supervised release. (Doc. 64). Defendant unsuccessfully
appealed. (See Docs. 77, 90). The Court denied two previous
motions for a reduction of his sentence. (See Docs. 97, 102).
motion for reconsideration requests that the Court reverse
its decision to deny relief under Amendment 782, which was
raised in Defendant's second motion for reconsideration.
(Doc. 106 at p. 1). Defendant's third motion for a
sentence reduction argues that he is entitled to a mitigating
role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, pursuant to
Amendment 794 of the sentencing guidelines. (Doc. 110).
Court has discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to
modify a sentence that is based on a sentencing range that
the Sentencing Commission subsequently lowers. United
States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009)
the Court must determine whether Defendant would have been
eligible for a reduction if the amended guidelines range had
been in effect at the time of Defendant's sentencing.
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010);
United States v. Garcia, 655 F.3d 426, 430 (5th Cir.
2011). In making this determination, the Court does not
revisit the factual determinations made at sentencing. See
United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th
Cir. 2011). If the Court determines that Defendant would have
been eligible for the reduction, then the Court may, in its
discretion, determine whether a reduction is appropriate
after considering the applicable § 3553(a) factors.
Garcia, 655 F.3d at 431.
Motion for Reconsideration
has not raised any argument that the Court failed to consider
when denying his original motion for reconsideration under
Amendment 782. Amendment 782 lowered the base offender level
for many drug offenses. See United States u.
Hernandez, 647 Fed.Appx. 426, 427 (5th Cir. 2016)
(unpublished) (per curiam). In its statement of reasons, the
Court found that "[Defendant's original offense
level was not based on the amount of drugs involved in his
offense. His original calculation was based on the
Court's determination that he is a career offender within
the meaning of USSG § 4B1.1Amendment 782 does not have
the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable
guideline range." (Doc. 103 at p. 1). Defendant does not
provide the Court with any reason to disturb its previous
Mitigating Role Adjustment
794 left the text of § 3B1.2 unchanged but made various
revisions to the commentary, " and it "introduced a
list of non-exhaustive factors that a sentencing court should
consider in determining whether to apply a mitigating role
adjustment." United States u. Gomez-Valle, 828
F.3d 324, 328 (5th Cir. 2016). However, Defendant does not
qualify for a mitigating role adjustment because he was
sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
(See Doc. 104 at ¶ 28). The United States Court
of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit has held that a defendant
with career offender status is ineligible for the minor role
reduction under Section 3B1.2. United States v.
Cashaw, 625 F.3d 271, 273-74 (5th Cir. 2010). Amendment
794 has no effect on this binding precedent; therefore,
Defendant remains ineligible for a minor role reduction.