United States v. Mahan

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM JOHN MAHAN, Defendant.

No. 6:06-cr-60045-AA

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division

May 21, 2020

OPINION AND ORDER

ANN AIKEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

The matter comes before the Court on defendant William John Mahan's Motion to Reduce Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (doc. 150). For the reasons below, defendant's motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On November 25, 2008, defendant was sentenced to a 120-month term of imprisonment after being found guilty by a jury of the following crimes: felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (“Count One”) and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(c) (“Count Two”). Defendant was also sentenced to a consecutive 60-month mandatory minimum term of imprisonment after being found guilty by a jury of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (“Count Three”). Defendant's total sentence imposed was 180-months imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release.

Defendant's advisory guideline range of imprisonment at the time was 140 to 175 months (excluding the 60-month consecutive term of imprisonment for Count Three). This guideline range was based on the grouping of Count One and Two, which resulted in a total offense level of 28 and a Criminal History Category of VI.

Defendant had been previously arrested by state authorities on January 10, 2006, for violating post-prison supervision on prior state convictions. Defendant was federally indicted for the offenses of this conviction three months after his arrest. However, defendant remained in state custody for the probation violation until December 10, 2007. The Bureau of Prisons would not credit defendant the time he spent in state custody after he was federally indicted since it was credited toward his state sentence.

At sentencing, the Probation Office recommended a 200-month term of incarceration, which included the 60-month consecutive term of imprisonment. Defendant asked the Court to consider the progress he had made while in custody and apply the 20 months he spent in state custody prior to sentencing to his federal sentence, resulting in a 120-month sentence.

On November 25, 2008, the Court accepted the presentence report guideline range, but imposed the requested sentence of 120-months, granting defendant's request for the 20-month reduction as a variance. The Court also imposed the mandatory, consecutive 60-month sentence for a total sentence of 180-month term of imprisonment.

On May 7, 2015, defendant filed a motion to reduce sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (doc. 150) Defendant's motion was filed after Sentencing Guideline Amendment 782 went into effect, which retroactively reduced most of the base level offenses in the U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 Drug Quantity Table. The Sentencing Commission also retroactively applied the amendment to previously imposed sentences. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). After defendant filed his motion the parties agreed Amendment 782 reduced his guideline range by two levels, which produced an amended total offense level of 26 and a Criminal History Category of VI. (doc. 172) Defendant's new amended guideline range is 120 to 150 months (again excluding the 60-month consecutive term of imprisonment for Count Three). The parties agreed defendant was statutorily eligible for this sentence reduction.

However defendant argued his total term of imprisonment should be reduced to 100-months. He reasoned the Court's original adjustment of 20 months was to grant him credit for his time in state custody, acting as concurrent sentences, and, therefore, should be incorporated into his federal term of imprisonment reduction. The government responded that defendant was ineligible for a reduction past the low end of the amended guideline under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), which states, “the 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 determined under subdivision (1) of this subsection.” (doc. 153)

On October 20, 2015, this Court entered an opinion and order denying the requested sentence reduction, finding that the defendant ineligible for the reduction under § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). The Court explained that the 20-month reduction was not a current sentence because the state sentence had already expired by the time of federal sentencing. Instead, the Court acknowledged the reduction as a variance to recognize defendant's progress and the time he served in state custody. Further, this Court stated it had appropriately considered all of the relevant § 3553(a) factors at the time of sentencing and would impose the same 120-month plus the mandatory consecutive 60-month sentence.

Defendant appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed the previous decision of this Court in an unpublished memorandum decision and remanded the case to allow “the district court to exercise its discretion in light of our opinion in Brito.” United States v. Mahan, 705 Fed.Appx. 547, 549 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that district courts have authority to give credit to a defendant for time spent in state custody in a federal term of imprisonment).

The Court now assesses defendant's motion and sentence in accordance with that holding.

DISCUSSION

In Brito, the Ninth Circuit decided “that a defendant's ‘term of imprisonment,' as used in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)” and the sentencing guidelines includes time spent in both state and federal custody. United States v. Brito, 868 F.3d 875, 881 (9th Cir. 2017). Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit held “time already served in state custody ‘constitutes imprisonment; under the applicable federal law.” Id. Therefore, as the parties have noted, defendant is statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction the U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 policy statement. The only remaining question is whether the Court should exercise its discretion after considering the factors set forth 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Establishing that defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction is only the first step in a two-step inquiry the Court must take in considering a motion under § 3582. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). In the second step, courts must “consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by reference to the policies relevant at step one is warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Id. at 827.

Some of the § 3553(a) factors the court must consider include:

The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; the purposes of sentencing; the kinds of sentences available; the sentences and ranges established by the Sentencing Guidelines; relevant policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants; and the need to provide restitution to victims.

United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1008 (9th Cir. 2013).

At the time of sentencing, this Court seriously considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors when deciding defendant's ultimate sentence. In making its ruling, the Court engaged in a colloquy with defendant, in which the Court repeatedly stated the purpose of the sentence was to hold defendant accountable for his past actions and behaviors. In doing so, the Court seriously considered the rehabilitative efforts defendant had taken while in state custody. Id. The Court also “looked at the balancing obligations of sentencing, punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and community safety. . . “ (doc. 119-1 at...