United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
MYERSCOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant Lori Langen's Amended Motion to
Reduce Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the
United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) Amendment 782
(eff. Nov. 1, 2014). d/e 39. Because Defendant's sentence
was not "based on" an amended Guidelines range,
Defendant's motion is DENIED.
2011, Defendant provided Crystal Krouse with methadone. Plea
Agreement ¶ 28, d/e 12.Ms. Krouse was later found dead in
her bed as a result of methadone intoxication. Id.
In August 2011, Defendant sold methadone to two confidential
sources, both of whom were working with investigators with
the Central Illinois Enforcement Group. Id. During
the exchange, Defendant stated that she gave Ms. Krouse
methadone. Id. Defendant was arrested on federal
charges of distribution of a controlled substance on March 7,
2012. Crim. Compl. 1; Text Order, Mar. 7, 2012.
defendant and the Government agree to a specific sentence
that they feel is appropriate given the particular facts of
the case, they may enter into a written plea agreement under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C)
("11(c)(1)(C) agreement"). Hughes v. United
States, 138 S.Ct. 1765, 1769 (2018). The Government and
Defendant entered into such an agreementon June 20, 2012.
See Plea Agreement. In the agreement, Defendant pled
guilty to three counts of unlawful distribution of a
controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). Plea Agreement ¶¶ 3-4.
While Defendant was not charged with Ms. Krouse's death,
Defendant did concede in her 11(c)(1)(C) agreement "that
the death of Crystal Krouse [was] a relevant factor" in
determining the length of Defendant's sentence.
Id. at ¶ 20. The 11 (c) (1) (C) agreement
stated that Defendant and the Government agreed to a term of
imprisonment of 120 months. Plea Agreement ¶ 6, d/e 12.
sentencing on December 3, 2012, Defendant's potential
Guidelines range was calculated to be 12-18 months.
Sent'gTr. 13:13-16, Dec. 3, 2012, d/e 36. Rather than
imposing a sentence within that range, the Court accepted the
120-month sentence from the 11(c)(1)(C) agreement and
Defendant was so sentenced. Id.
United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) is required to
periodically review and revise the Sentencing Guidelines. 28
U.S.C. § 994(o). If a defendant's original sentence
was based on a Guidelines range that was lowered by the USSC,
the defendant's sentence may be reduced accordingly. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The USSC adopted USSG Amendment 782
in November 2014, which reduced the sentencing base levels
for most drug offenses by two levels. USSG App. C, Amend. 782
(Supp. Nov. 2012-Nov. 2016). The Amendment was later made
retroactive to allow defendants sentenced under the higher
levels to seek sentence reductions. Amend. 788;
Hughes, 138 S.Ct. at 1774. The base levels for the
offenses for which Defendant was convicted were included in
therefore, filed her first pro se motion to reduce sentence
on August 1, 2014, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and
Amendment 782. Def.'s Mot. to Reduce Sentence, Aug. 1,
2014, d/e 26. Before receiving a ruling on the 2014 motion to
reduce sentence, Defendant filed a motion for appointment of
counsel on February 24, 2015, which was docketed as a second
motion to reduce sentence. Mot. for Appointment of Counsel,
Feb. 24, 2015, d/e 28. Those motions were denied on August 5,
2015. TextOrder, Aug. 5, 2015.
2018, Defendant filed another pro se Motion for Reduction of
Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). d/e34. The
Court appointed the Office of the Federal Public Defender to
represent Defendant. Text Order, July 17, 2018. Appointed
counsel subsequently filed the amended motion that is now
before the Court. In her current motion to reduce sentence,
Defendant asserts a new review of her motion is appropriate
given the Supreme Court's decision in Hughes v.
United States, in which the Supreme Court overruled the
case law on which the Court's denial of Defendant's
first motion was based. Def.'s Am. Mot. 4.
defendant who enters an 11 (c) (1) (C) plea agreement may
also have his sentence reduced if his original sentence was
based on a Guidelines range subsequently lowered by the USSC.
Hughes, 138 S.Ct. at 1776. Usually, defendants may
only make one motion to reduce sentence per USSC Guidelines
Amendment. United States v. Beard, 745 F.3d
288, 292 (7th Cir. 2017). However, Defendant's previous
motion was reviewed using case law that has since been
overruled. A new analysis of Defendant's motion is,
therefore, appropriate. However, under the current case law
Defendant's sentence is still not based on a
retroactively amended Guidelines range. Consequently,
Defendant is not eligible for a reduced sentence.
A new analysis of Defendant's § 3582(c)(2) motion to
reduce sentence is appropriate.
a defendant may make one motion per retroactive amendment.
United States v. Beard, 745 F.3d 288, 292 (7th Cir.
2017). If a defendant is unsatisfied with a court's
decision on the motion to reduce sentence, the
defendant's only recourse is a direct appeal. United
States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 2010).
Defendants may not, however, file additional motions.
Id. Simply put, defendants usually only have one
bite at the apple per retroactive Amendment. Beard,
745 F.3d at 292.
when the Court first denied Defendant's § 3582(c)(2)
motion, the Court relied on Freeman v. United
States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011). Text Order, Aug. 5, 2015.
In Freeman, the Supreme Court addressed whether
11(c)(1)(C) agreements were "based on" the
Sentencing Guidelines for purposes of motions for sentence
reductions under § 3582(c)(2). 564 U.S. at 525-26. Butno
opinion in Freeman commanded a majority: a plurality
opinion authored by Justice Kennedy was joined by three
Justices, a dissent authored by ...