United States v. Mofle
| Decision Date | 22 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CR12-3028-LTS,CR12-3028-LTS |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALICIA IMELDA MOFLE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(2)
This case is before me pursuant to defendant Alicia Mofle's motion (Doc. No. 155) to reduce sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). She argues that a sentence reduction is warranted under Amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines. Doc. No. 155 at 2. The Government resists the motion. Doc. No. 161. Mofle filed a reply (Doc. No. 162) to the Government's resistance. The motion is fully briefed and ready for decision.
After Mofle pleaded guilty to counts one and two of her indictment, United States District Judge Mark W. Bennett sentenced her to a 168-month term of imprisonment on March 8, 2013. Doc. No. 117. The sentence reflected both a downward departure for substantial assistance and a downward variance that was based on Mofle's traumatic history and drug addiction. Doc. No. 134 at 93, 123-26.
After Amendment 782 ("All Drugs Minus Two") was promulgated, Judge Bennett issued a sua sponte order denying Mofle a sentence reduction thereunder on March 3, 2015. Doc. No. 141. Judge Bennett found that he could not reduce Mofle's sentence "[b]ecause the court imposed a term of imprisonment outside the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing as a result of a downward variance," and the original sentence was already below the new guideline range as amended by Amendment 782. Id. at 3-4; see also Doc. No. 146. Judge Bennett relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), which states that "the court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range." Doc. No. 141 at 4 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)).
Mofle did not appeal or otherwise respond to the sua sponte order. However, on November 2, 2015, she filed a pro se motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to Amendment 782. Doc. No. 145. Because the court had already denied relief sua sponte, and Mofle did not appeal, Judge Bennett denied her motion. Doc. No. 146. Mofle, again proceeding pro se, appealed that denial on January 21, 2016. Doc. No. 147. The Eighth Circuit summarily affirmed Judge Bennett's ruling on January 27, 2016. Doc. No. 151.
On July 16, 2019, Mofle, now acting through counsel, filed her second § 3582(c)(2) motion (Doc. No. 155), which is now before this court.1
As "a rare exception to the finality of criminal judgments," 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) allows a district court to reduce a defendant's sentence under certain circumstances. United States v. Koons, 850 F.3d 973, 976 (8th Cir.), cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 543 (2017), and aff'd, 138 S. Ct. 1783 (2018). Under § 3582(c)(2), a court may reduce a sentence when a defendant "has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Interpreting § 3582(c)(2) in Dillon v. United States, the Supreme Court explained that a district court must follow a two step-inquiry to determine whether a sentence adjustment is warranted. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). First, the court must "follow the [Sentencing] Commission's instructions in § 1B1.10 to determine the prisoner's eligibility for a sentence modification and the extent of the reduction authorized." Id. at 827; see also United States v. Helm, 891 F.3d 740, 742 (8th Cir. 2018) (). Then, if a prisoner is eligible for a sentence reduction, the court must "consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine whether . . . one is warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case." Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827. A sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) is considered "a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence," not a resentencing. Id. at 826. It is also a matter of discretion, "not constitutionally compelled." Id. at 828.
To determine whether, and to what extent, a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under § 1B1.10, the court must first determine whether the amendment in question is covered. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). If so, then the court must "determine the amended guideline range that would have been applicable to the defendant if the amendment[] . . . had been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced." Id. § 1B1.10(b)(1). A reduction is permitted as long as the prisoner's sentence is not reduced to "less than the minimum of the amended guideline range" or to "less than the term of imprisonment the defendant has already served." Id. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), (C). However, Congress has provided an exception to the general rule against reductions below the amended guideline minimum: If the original sentence imposed was less than the guideline range applicable at the time of sentencing "pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant's substantial assistance to authorities," the court may order a sentence reduction that is "comparably less than the amended guideline range." Id. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B).
Mofle seeks a 30-month sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 782. Doc. No. 155 at 10. Mofle's life before her arrest, trial and conviction for drug crimes was filled with hardship and abuse. Id. at 3-6. Judge Bennett stated that she "had more trauma in her life than . . . the vast majority of defendants" and that, "[o]n the trauma scale, she's off the charts." See id. at 1; Doc. No. 134 at 107. Although Judge Bennett twice denied her relief under § 3582(c)(2), Mofle argues that her current motion is permitted and that a sentence reduction is warranted. Doc. No. 155 at 1-2.
First, Mofle argues that Judge Bennett improperly denied her relief under § 3582(c)(2). Id. at 11-12. She asserts that Judge Bennett misapplied U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) by not considering the substantial assistance exception under § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). Id. at 11. Because she received a substantial assistance departure, Mofle argues that § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) permits a sentence reduction below the new guideline range, as amended by Amendment 782, that is comparable to the total deviation of her sentence from the original unamended guideline range. Id. at 9-12.
To illustrate her request, Mofle explains that her sentence was approximately 53 percent below the guideline range at the time of sentencing: 360 months reduced to 168 months. Id. at 9-10. She argues that under § 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), a comparable 53 percent departure below the new amended guideline range minimum is appropriate: 292 months reduced to 138 months. Id. This would equate to a 30-month reduction to her sentence. Id. Mofle argues that the mitigating circumstances found by Judge Bennett at sentencing, as well as the rehabilitation she has experienced while incarcerated, justify such a reduction. Id. at 13-14.
Next, Mofle acknowledges that this is her second § 3582(c)(2) motion but argues that it is permitted because this court erred in its previous rulings. Id. at 21. Mofle argues that this court's prior conclusion - that she was not eligible for a sentence reduction due to the limitation in § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) - is "clearly erroneous" and resultedin "manifest injustice." Id.; Doc. No. 162 at 3-4. Because of this error and injustice, her motion is not barred by the "law of the case doctrine." Doc. No. 155 at 21; Doc. No. 162 at 3-4. She also argues that this court does not lack jurisdiction to hear a second § 3582(c)(2) motion and thus should fix its prior error by evaluating her claims on the merits and granting a sentence reduction. Doc. No. 162 at 3-4.
In support of her arguments, Mofle has presented a letter from Judge Bennett in which he states that if he had not concluded that he lacked the authority, he "clearly would have given her . . . relief and reduced her sentence." Doc. No. 155-1. Mofle argues that this provides clear evidence that a sentence reduction is justified because (1) Judge Bennett's conclusion regarding eligibility was erroneous, and (2) Judge Bennett - had he not reached that erroneous conclusion - would have granted a sentence reduction. Doc. No. 155 at 2, 13; Doc. No. 162 at 4.
Whether or not a reduction is appropriate in this case depends on three issues: (1) whether Mofle's motion, which is her second § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking relief pursuant to Amendment 782,2 is permitted, if so, (2) whether she is eligible for a sentence reduction due to the substantial assistance exception in § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) and, if so, (3) whether, and to what extent, a sentence reduction is appropriate based on the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Ultimately, I find that the first issue is dispositive.
Section 3582(c)(2) is "a narrow exception to the rule of finality" of sentences for those convicted of a crime. Dillon, 560 U.S. at 824, 827. While the statute provides potential relief for prisoners when the Sentencing Commission amends the sentencing guidelines, it does not address how many times a prisoner may file motions to obtain a sentence reduction pursuant to a single amendment. The Eighth Circuit has not yet considered this issue, but several other courts of appeal have.
All circuits that have addressed second or successive3 § 3582(c)(2) motions pursuant to the same amendment agree that a district court is not prevented from considering them due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.4 See United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 711 (5th Cir. 2018) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial