United States District Court, E.D. California
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT UDGE.
Mark Parker (“Defendant”) was convicted after a
jury trial of: (1) Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine and at
Least 50 Grams of Crack Cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 846; (2) Distribution of at Least
Five Grams of Crack Cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1); and (3) Possession With Intent to Distribute at
Least 50 Grams of Crack Cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
841(a)(1). He was sentenced on May 5, 2011, to 360 months
imprisonment. Presently before the Court is Defendant's
Motion to Reduce Sentence, by which he seeks a reduction to a
sentence of 324 months. ECF No. 221. The Government opposes
Defendant's request, arguing that the Court should
exercise its discretion to decline to reduce the sentence
under the particular circumstances of this case. ECF No. 223.
For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
seeks to reduce his sentence in light of the United States
Sentencing Commission's passage of Amendment 782.
Generally, Amendment 782 revised downward by two levels the
Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. Although
Amendment 782 became effective November 1, 2014, it applies
retroactively. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d),
the Commission makes a Guidelines amendment retroactive, 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a district court to
reduce an otherwise final sentence that is based on the
amended provision.” Dillon v. United States,
560 U.S. 817, 821 (2010). “Any reduction must be
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.” Id. “The
relevant policy statement, USSG § 1B1.10, instructs
courts proceeding under § 3582(c)(2) to substitute the
amended Guidelines range while ‘leav[ing] all other
guideline application decisions unaffected.'”
Id. (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1)). Under
§ 3582(c)(2), a court may then grant a reduction within
the amended Guidelines range if it determines that one is
warranted “‘after considering the factors set
forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are
applicable.'” Id. at 822. “Except in
limited circumstances, however, § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)
forecloses a court acting under § 3582(c)(2) from
reducing a sentence ‘to a term that is less than the
minimum of the amended guideline
range.'” Id. In addition, “a
reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment . . .
is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if . . .
[the] amendment . . . does not have the effect of lowering
the defendant's applicable guideline range.”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
parties agree that Defendant qualifies to seek a reduction
because Defendant's guideline range, which was originally
360 months to life, has since been reduced to 324-405 months.
Defendant thus seeks to have his sentence reduced to the low
end of 324 months.
does not end the inquiry, however, and the Government
contends the Court should exercise its discretion to decline
to modify Defendant's sentence. Id. More
specifically, the Government points out that: (1) Defendant
led a long-running (more than five years) drug trafficking
organization (“DTO”) moving massive quantities of
crack cocaine; (2) he supplied crack cocaine chopped up and
packaged for distribution to lower level dealers; (3) when
finally apprehended through a vehicle stop, Defendant fled at
a high rate of speed, ran a red light and crashed into
another vehicle traversing the intersection; (4) even after
that crash, Defendant refused to surrender until officers
subdued him with pepper spray; (5) after Defendant was
arrested, officers located marijuana, 67.5 grams of crack
cocaine, and $1, 159 in small bills. Defendant was charged
with the three counts indicated above, and, after a six-day
jury trial, Defendant was found guilty on all charges.
this backdrop, no sentencing reduction is warranted. This
Defendant ran an ongoing, long-term DTO through which he
inundated the City of Vallejo with large quantities of crack
cocaine. In fact, it appears that Defendant's primary
occupation was drug trafficking and that he had been engaged
in such activities for years. Moreover, it is critically
important to the Court's decision, that Defendant
demonstrated a flagrant disregard for both law enforcement
and innocent bystanders when he recklessly fled to avoid
arrest. In sum, the Court, having had the benefit of learning
all of the intricacies of Defendant's DTO during his
lengthy trial, specifically finds that it would be derelict
in its duties if it acquiesced in Defendant's current
request for a shorter sentence.
Motion to Reduce Sentence (ECF No. 221) is DENIED.
 Unlike most Defendants seeking
sentence reductions, Defendant is represented by
 Those limited circumstances, which are
not applicable here, arise when “the term of
imprisonment imposed was less than the term of imprisonment
provided by the guideline range applicable to the defendant
at the time of sentencing pursuant to a government motion to
reflect the defendant's substantial assistance to
authorities.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B).
 Although the Court has previously
applied the 3553(a) factors in other cases to permit a
reduction opposed by the Government, those cases are not on
par with this one. This Defendant had an extensive criminal
history, made a career of trafficking drugs, is responsible
for multiple kilograms of crack cocaine, and endangered both
law enforcement and the community when he fled. In other
cases that have come before the Court, the defendants moving
for a reduction had no criminal history, had possessed
extremely small quantities of drugs, or did not appear to be
making a career of their trafficking activities.
See, e.g., United States v.
Gonzalez-Lizola, Case No. 2:07-cr-00328 (defendant with
no criminal history who was convicted based on his
involvement as a favor to his cousin in a marijuana grow over
the course of only a few days); United States v.
Gazell, Case No. 2:11-cr-00180 (defendant with a less
egregious criminal history, much smaller ...