United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. Majzoub U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(2) 
Tarnow Senior United States District Judge
10, 2015 Defendant Anmy Tran filed a Motion for Sentence
Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c) . Tran
filed a Motion to Inquire of Case Status  on September
6, 2016. On December 1, 2017, the Government filed a Response
. For the reasons stated below, the Motion for Sentence
Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2)  is
and Procedural Background
10, 2013, a jury convicted Tran of Health Care Fraud
Conspiracy (Count I); Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled
Substances (Count XI); and Conspiracy to Pay/Receive Health
Care Kickbacks (Count XXI). [Dkt. #975].
January 10, 2014, the Court held a Sentencing Hearing.
Tran's Sentencing Guidelines were 97-121 months. Neither
party objected to that calculation. The Guidelines were
calculated, in part, based on a base offense level of 26 on
Count XI and a base offense level of 28 on Counts I and
At the Sentencing Hearing, the Court explained: “[t]he
resulting calculation is a Criminal History Category I, Total
Offense Level 30, for a Guideline Range of 97, which is 8
years and 1 month to 121, which is 10 years and 1
month.” Sent'g Hr'g Tr., 26:12-16, Jan. 10,
2014. Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the
Court sentenced Tran to a below-guidelines sentence of five
years of imprisonment on all three counts to run
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) provides:
[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 . . . the court may reduce the term
of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in
section 3553(a) . . . if such a reduction is consistent with
the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
seeks a reduction of her sentence based on Amendment 782 to
the Sentencing Guidelines, enacted on November 1, 2014.
Amendment 782 amended the drug quantity table set forth in
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 by reducing the base level offense by
two levels for most drug offenses. See United States v.
Vestal, No. 17-5080, 2017 WL 5899788, at *1 (6th Cir.
Nov. 29, 2017). Tran strictly seeks review of the applicable
Guidelines for Count XI.
submits that under Amendment 782, her Sentencing
Guidelines' range has been lowered from 97-121 months to
51-63 months. She asks the Court to impose a below-guidelines
sentence of 33 months.
Government concedes that had the Court sentenced Tran after
the enactment of Amendment 782, her Guidelines' offense
level for Count XI would have been 24, instead of 26.
Nevertheless, the Government argues that resentencing is
unwarranted because the proposed adjustment would not have
modified Tran's ultimate Sentencing Guidelines' range
of 97-121 months.
Tran was sentenced for both a narcotics offense (Count XI)
and fraud offenses (Counts I and XXI), the Court applied
U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4. See Tran, 609 F. App'x at
297 (explaining that the district court
“incorporate[ed] the multiple-count adjustment . . .
[and] calculated Tran's total offense level at
3D1.4 provides: “[t]he combined offense level is
determined by taking the offense level applicable to the
Group with the highest offense level and increasing that
offense level by the amount indicated in the following table
. . . .” In this case, the highest base offense level
was 28, assigned to Tran's convictions for Conspiracy to
Commit Healthcare Fraud (Count I) and Conspiracy to Receive
Healthcare Kickbacks (Count XXI). Thus, 28 was the proper
starting point. See United States v. Bazazpour, 690
F.3d 796, 804 (6th Cir. 2012) (explaining that the district
court “applied the highest base offense level for the
counts on which [the defendant] was ...