United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton
AND ORDER DENYING UNITED STATES' MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANT'S 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) MOTION (DOC. 270)
AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) REQUESTING THIS COURT REDUCE THE
SENTENCE OF CHRISTOPHER HUNTER FOR EXTRAORDINARY AND
COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES (DOC. 264)
M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case is before the Court on the “Motion Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) Requesting This Court Reduce the
Sentence of Christopher Hunter for Extraordinary and
Compelling Circumstances” (Doc. 264) (the
“3582(c)(1)(A) Motion”), filed by Christopher
Hunter (“Hunter”). The United States (the
“Government”) filed a Response in Opposition to
the 3582(c)(1)(A) Motion (Doc. 269) (the
“Response”), and Hunter filed a Reply to the
Response (Doc. 278) (the “Reply”). Hunter, acting
pro se, asks that this Court reduce his sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Hunter also
filed, or the Court received, a number of additional
documents related to his 3582(c)(1)(A) Motion, including
Hunter's 28(j) Letter to Supplement (Doc. 265), Warden
Quintana's Response (Doc. 267), Letter from Carissa
Colchin (Doc. 275), and Letter to Magistrate Judge Michael R.
Merz (Doc. 276). The matter is ripe for review.
reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES
Hunter's 3582(c)(1)(A) Motion.
was indicted on March 28, 2006 and convicted by a jury on all
four counts in a Superseding Indictment returned April 25,
2006. (Docs. 22, 51.) Those four counts were: possession of
cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); conspiracy to distribute in excess
of five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846; possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); and, being
a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). After an appeal reversed the conviction for
possession of a firearm during a drug offense but affirmed
the remaining convictions and sentence (United States v.
Hunter, 558 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 2009)), this Court
entered an Amended Judgment on remand, imposing an aggregate
sentence of 360 months imprisonment. (Doc. 119.) Hunter
appealed again, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. United
States v. Hunter, 646 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 2011).
Hunter's conviction became final on direct appeal when
the Supreme Court denied him certiorari on October 7, 2011.
Hunter v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 390 (2011).
now seeks “a sentence reduction under the federal
compassionate release statute, ” Section
3552(c)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. 264 at PAGEID # 3959.)
district court has limited authority to modify a sentence.
“Generally speaking, once a court has imposed a
sentence, it does not have authority to change or modify that
sentence unless such authority is expressly granted by
statute.” United States v. Hammond, 712 F.3d
333, 335 (6th Cir. 2013). Section 3582 grants such authority
in certain limited circumstances. It provides, in part:
The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has
been imposed except that-in any case-the court … may
reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of
probation or supervised release with or without conditions
that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original
term of imprisonment), after considering the factors set
forth in [18 U.S.C.] section 3553(a) to the extent that they
are applicable, if it finds that extraordinary and compelling
reasons warrant such a reduction … and that such a
reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
the Court can modify a term of imprisonment if it finds that
(1) “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such
a reduction, ” (2) “such a reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission, ” and (3) such a reduction is
appropriate “after considering the factors set forth in
section 3553(a) to the extent that they are
applicable.” Id. In addition, the applicable
policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission in this
instance also requires that the defendant not be “a
danger to the safety of any other person in the community, as
provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).” United States
Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 1B1.13 (Nov.
to that applicable policy statement issued by the Sentencing
Commission identifies four, relatively narrow, circumstances
in which “extraordinary and compelling reasons”
may exist. Id. at cmt. n. 1. Those four
circumstances are: (A) Medical Condition of the Defendant;
(B) Age of the Defendant; (C) Family Circumstances; and (D)
other extraordinary and compelling reason.Id. Each
of the four circumstances has its own parameters.
Id. Commentary also confirms that “[p]ursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 994(t), ...