United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER ADDRESSING DEFENDANT'S LETTERS RE REDUCTION
IN SENTENCE AND CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED [RE: ECF 35,
LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge.
Stormee Haney, a federal prisoner serving an 84-month term of
imprisonment, has filed two letters inquiring whether she
received a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582 and credit for time served. Letters, ECF 35, 39. Haney
states that although she understood at the time of sentencing
that she was to receive both the reduction and the credit,
she has not been able to find reference to either in her
Federal Public Defender's Office has construed
Haney's inquiry as a motion for reduction in sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and has filed a
Notice of Non-Intervention, indicating that “the Office
of the Federal Public Defender in the Northern District of
California has reviewed Defendant's motion and has
nothing further to add to her request.” Notice of
Non-Intervention, ECF 37.
not clear whether Haney actually intends to bring a motion or
whether she merely seeks clarification regarding the status
of the reduction in sentence and credit that she expected to
receive. As discussed below, the Court clarifies that Haney
received a two-level reduction in offense level at the time
of sentencing and that she is not entitled to a reduction in
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. The Court also
clarifies that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), and
not the Court, has authority to calculate credit for time
served. Thus to the extent that Haney does move for a
reduction in sentence or credit for time served, such motion
October 16, 2013, a grand jury issued an indictment charging
Haney with Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute,
and to Distribute, Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (Count 1); and Possession with Intent to
Distribute Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1) (Count 2). Indictment, ECF 1. Haney thereafter
entered into a written Plea Agreement with the Government
pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C).
Plea Agreement, ECF 25. The Plea Agreement provided that
Haney would plead guilty to Count 1 only and would be
sentenced to 84 months imprisonment, 5 years supervised
release, a fine in an amount to be determined by the Court,
and a special assessment in the amount of $100. Id.
¶¶ 1, 8. The Plea Agreement recognized that the
United States Sentencing Commission was contemplating an
amendment to United States Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1,
governing drug trafficking offenses, which would lower base
offense levels in the drug quantity table by 2 levels.
Id. ¶ 7. The Plea Agreement expressly treated
that amendment as if it already were applicable to
Haney's case, applying the contemplated 2-level reduction
in calculating Haney's total offense level as 27.
Id. Judge D. Lowell Jensen, the district judge then
assigned to the case, accepted Haney's plea on August 7,
2014 and set sentencing for October 30, 2014. Minutes, ECF
20; Order Accepting Plea, ECF 24.
to sentencing, the United States Probation Office prepared a
presentence report (“PSR”) calculating the
applicable Guideline range as 188 months - 235 months and
recommending a 130 month term of imprisonment. PSR, ECF 27.
Haney filed a sentencing memorandum conceding “the
technical accuracy of the PSR” but requesting that
Judge Jensen sentence her to 84 months imprisonment pursuant
to the terms of the Plea Agreement. Def.'s Sentencing
Memo., ECF 28. Judge Jensen did so, sentencing Haney on
October 30, 2014 to the custody of the BOP for a term of 84
months on Count 1 and granting the Government's motion to
dismiss Count 2. Minutes, ECF 30; Judgment, ECF 33. The
contemplated Guidelines amendment, which was applied
prospectively under the Plea Agreement, became effective in
November 2014 as Amendment 782. See United States v.
Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1041 (9th Cir. 2017)
(“In November 2014, Amendment 782 to the Guidelines
became effective, lowering by two levels the base offense
level calculated under § 2D1.1(c) for certain drug types
Judge Jensen has retired, this case has been reassigned to
the undersigned judge. Haney's letters regarding
reduction in sentence and credit for time served are
addressed as follows.
Reduction in Sentence
federal sentencing law, a district court generally ‘may
not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed.'” Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d at
1042 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)). “This baseline
rule is subject to an important exception: a district court
may reduce a sentence based on a guideline range that is
later lowered by the Sentencing Commission.”
Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). Deciding
whether to reduce a defendant's sentence under §
3582(c)(2) is a two-step process. Id. “[A]
district court first determines a defendant's eligibility
for a reduction.” Id. “If a defendant is
eligible, the court must then consider the factors in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) and assess whether the requested
reduction is warranted.” Id.
order to establish eligibility, “a defendant must show
(1) that his sentence was ‘based on' a guideline
range that has since been lowered, and (2) that the reduction
he seeks is ‘consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.'”
Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d at 1042 (quoting 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). A sentence imposed following a
Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement may be “based on”
a guideline range if the district court in fact relies on the
guideline range in imposing sentence. Id. at
1042-43. However, if the district court imposes “a
particular sentence for reasons unrelated to the guideline
range, ” the sentence is not “based on” the
guideline range and the defendant is not eligible for a
reduction. Id. at 1043-44.
present case, the sentence imposed by Judge Jensen was not
“based on” the guideline range. As discussed
above, Probation calculated the applicable guideline range to
be 188 months - 235 months, and Haney did not dispute that
calculation. Judge Jensen did not impose a sentence within
that range, but instead imposed the 84-month term of
imprisonment agreed to by the parties in the Plea Agreement.
The 84-month term was calculated in part by prospectively
applying the 2-level reduction in offense level which later
was adopted as Amendment 782.
the Court clarifies that Haney already received the 2-level
reduction in offense level that she references in her
letters, and that she is not eligible for a ...