United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF
SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C) (DOC. NOS. 259,
December 20, 2016 defendant Teresa Martinez Martinez filed a
pro se motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),
seeking a reduction in her previously imposed sentence in
this case based upon amendments to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”). (Doc. No.
259.) On January 5, 2017, defendant filed an amended motion
in this regard. (Doc. No. 262.)
782 revised the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1
and reduced by two levels the offense level applicable to
many federal drug trafficking offenses. Here, the government
opposes defendant's motion for a sentence reduction on
the grounds that defendant has already benefited from
Amendment 782, pointing out that on January 29, 2016 the
court granted the parties' stipulated motion (Doc. Nos.
257, 258) thereby reducing defendant's sentence from 264
months to 262 months and that the defendant's sentence is
now at the bottom of the amended advisory guideline range and
cannot be reduced further as a result of Amendment 782. (Doc.
No. 266 at 1.) The government's argument is
persuasive. Accordingly, defendant's motion and amended
motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c) will be denied.
3582(c)(2) authorizes district courts to modify a previously
imposed sentence “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.” United States v. Dunn,
728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Effective November 1,
2014, the U.S. Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment
782 to the U.S.S.G., which generally revised the Drug
Quantity Table and chemical quantity tables across drug and
chemical types. The Commission also voted to make Amendment
782 retroactively applicable to previously sentenced
defendants. However, “[a] reduction in the
defendant's term of imprisonment is not consistent with
this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if . . . an amendment listed in
subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the
defendant's applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10 (a)(2)(B). A district court's authority to
modify a sentence pursuant to an amendment to the advisory
guidelines is constrained by the Sentencing Commission.
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010).
September 4, 2012, defendant Martinez was sentenced to
264-months imprisonment- a term below the low-end of the
applicable sentencing guideline range at the time. (Doc. No.
190.) Her total offense level was 38, her criminal history
category was IV, and the resulting guideline range was 324 to
405 months. (Presentence Report (“PSR”) at 2a.)
Applying Amendment 782, the defendant's new offense level
is 36, her criminal history category remains IV, and her
amended guideline range calls for a sentence of between 262
to 327 months. (Doc. No. 257 at 2.) As noted by the
government, defendant has already had her sentence reduced to
the low end of her amended guideline range pursuant to the
parties' stipulation on January 29, 2016. (Id.)
Accordingly, defendant Martinez has already benefitted from
the revised Drug Quantity Table under the Sentencing
Guidelines and is ineligible for any further sentence
reduction beyond the two-month reduction already afforded to
her. See U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.10(b)(2)(A)
(“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant's term
of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this
policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of
the amended guideline range.”); United States v.
Tercero, 734 F.3d 979, 981 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that
“the district court correctly interpreted and applied
both § 3582(c) and § 1B1.10” in denying the
defendant's motion to reduce his sentence “because
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) prohibits reductions below
the low end of the adjusted Guidelines range”); see
also United States v. Davis, 739 F.3d 1222, 1224 (9th
Cir. 2014) (“We note as well that all of the other
circuits to have addressed this question have held that the
Commission acted within its authority in amending §
reasons set forth above, defendant's motion and amended
motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582 (Doc. Nos. 259, 262) are denied. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to close the case.
 On February 10, 2017, the court
granted the Federal Defender's Office thirty days to
supplement defendant's pro se motion or to
notify the court that it did not intend to file a supplement.
(Doc. No. 263.) On the same day, the Federal Defender's
Office filed notice that no supplement to the motion would be
filed by that office on defendant's behalf. (Doc. No.
 The lone exception to this rule
provided for by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), is not