United States District Court, S.D. Florida
C. Huck United States District Judge.
CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Ali Louis Adam's
Motion Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to Modify or Reduce
Term of Imprisonment Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § IB 1.10(c),
Amendment 782, Effective November 1, 2014 (the
"Motion") [ECF No. 418], entered on December 6,
2016. The Government filed its Response [ECF No. 420] on
December 15, 2016. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the
Response, the record, and the applicable law. For the reasons
that follow, the Motion is denied.
Ali Louis Adam ("Defendant") pleaded guilty to
Counts 2 and 8 of the superseding indictment, which charged
him with violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 2) and 18
U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 8). Prior to Defendant's
sentencing, the U.S. Probation Office prepared a Presentence
Investigation Report ("PSI"), to which Defendant
filed objections [ECF No. 233]. Defendant's base offense
level was 38 pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines in effect
at that time based on Defendant's accountability for more
than 150 kilograms of cocaine. See PSI at 21;
U.S.S.G. §§ 2Sl.l(a), 2D 1.1 (a) & (c)(1)
(2007). Additionally, the PSI indicated that "Adam is
accountable for at least 1, 000 kilograms of cocaine."
PSI at ¶ 56. Defendant did not object to this factual
finding in his written objections to the PSI. During the
sentencing hearing, the Court and Defendant's counsel
discussed the fact that the amount of cocaine in question was
in excess of 1500 kilograms, although the amount pertinent to
calculating Defendant's base offense level under the
Sentencing Guidelines was solely a quantity in excess of 150
kilograms. See Sentencing Hearing Transcript at
25-29. Additionally, the Government proffered that the amount
was in excess of 1500 kilograms, as supported by the evidence
that the Government could produce. See Id. at 35.
Court calculated Defendant's sentence by reducing
Defendant's total offense level from the recommendation
of Probation to 40 and reducing Defendant's criminal
history category to a category III. See Sentencing
Hearing Transcript at 24. Under the United States Sentencing
Guidelines in effect at the time of Defendant's
sentencing, a total offense level of 40 with a criminal
history category of III yielded a sentencing range of
imprisonment of 360 months to life. U.S.S.G. § 5A
(2007). The Court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of
imprisonment of 360 months as to Count 2 and 240 months as to
Count 8, followed by concurrent terms of supervised release
of 60 months as to Count 2 and 36 months as to Count 8. [ECF
No. 258], On February 24, 2010, the Government filed a Motion
for Downward Departure [ECF No. 366], which requested that
Defendant's sentence be reduced by 33% for having
substantially assisted in the prosecution of others. The
Court subsequently reduced Defendant's sentence to
concurrent terms of imprisonment of 220 months as to Count 2
and 220 months as to Count 8, followed by concurrent terms of
supervised release of 60 months as to Count 2 and 36 months
as to Count 8. [ECF No. 369].
November 1, 2014, Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines
changed the base offense level calculations in the Drug
Quantity Table of § 2D 1.1. As noted above, prior to
Amendment 782, a defendant's base offense level would be
38 for accountability for more than 150 kilograms of cocaine.
See U.S.S.G. §2Dl.l(a) (2007). The new
calculation under Amendment 782 provided for a base offense
level of 38 for 450 kilograms or more of cocaine and a base
level of 36 for at least 150 kilograms but less than 450
kilograms of cocaine.
filed the instant Motion for a two-level sentence reduction
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § IB 1.10 and 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) [ECF No. 418]. In his Motion, Defendant argues
that his base offense level should be recalculated to 36 in
light of Amendment 782.
is a general rule of finality for a criminal sentence, and
the court may only modify a sentence in limited
circumstances. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.
817, 824 (2010). Congress has authorized one such exception
for a court to modify a term of imprisonment in Section
[I]n 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 . . .,
the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, ... if such a
reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.
788 clarifies that Amendment 782 is retroactive for sentences
effective November 1, 2015, or later. The Sentencing
Guidelines further provide for the determination of a
reduction in term of imprisonment:
In determining whether, and to what extent, a reduction in
the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement is warranted, the
court shall determine the amended guideline range that would
have been applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to
the guidelines listed in subsection (d) had been in effect at
the time the defendant was sentenced. In making such
determination, the court shall substitute only the amendments
listed in subsection (d) for the corresponding guideline
provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced
and shall leave all other guideline application decisions
782 is covered by subsection (d). See ...