United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
R.
Steven Whalen Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE [513]
LAURIE
J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Following
a two-week trial in 2011, a jury convicted Dajuan Lamarr Wren
of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, 21
U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and being a felon in possession
of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). (R. 178.) The
underlying offense involved Wren supplying large amounts of
heroin as part of a drug conspiracy. For sentencing guideline
purposes, he was held accountable for distributing 1, 205
grams of heroin. An enhancement was also included because
when police conducted a search at Wren's home, they found
a loaded Glock 9mm handgun.
Thus,
at sentencing, former Chief Judge Gerald E. Rosen calculated
Wren's base offense level as 34 and his criminal history
category as III. (ECF No. 347, PageID.4798.) This resulted in
an advisory guidelines imprisonment range of 188 to 235
months. Judge Rosen imposed a sentence of 216-months on the
conspiracy count (the 60th percentile of his range) and
120-months on the firearm count, to run concurrently. (ECF
no. 323.) The Sixth Circuit affirmed Wren's conviction
and sentence on direct appeal. See United States v.
Wren, 528 Fed.Appx. 500 (6th Cir. 2013).
Then in
November 2014, the Sentencing Commission amended the
guidelines, reducing the base offense level for certain drug
offenses by two levels. So Wren's total base offense
level was lowered to 32. USSG § 2D1.1(c)(4). This
resulted in an amended sentencing guidelines range of 151 to
188 months of imprisonment. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2), Judge Rosen sua sponte reduced Wren's
sentence to 188 months. (ECF No. 427.) While the order
indicated that the court had taken into account the
applicable policy statement in USSG § 1B1.10 and the
sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), it did not
provide any specific reasons for selecting a sentence at the
top of the amended guidelines range.
Wren
appealed, seeking a lower sentence. (ECF No. 428.) He
believed the amended sentence, like the original, should be
within the 60th percentile of the guidelines range, or 173
months. (United States v. Wren, ECF No. 437 (6th
Cir. Aug 5, 2016)). Relying on United States v.
Howard, 644 F.3d 455, 460 (6th Cir. 2011), where the
district court had likewise failed to provide a sufficient
explanation supporting its reduced sentence, the Sixth
Circuit vacated this court's order granting Wren a
reduction of sentence and remanded for further proceedings.
(Id.)
Unfortunately,
no further action was taken prior to Judge Rosen's
retirement. Then, after the case was reassigned to the
undersigned, the focus was on Wren's motion to vacate the
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. But on May 2, 2019,
Wren filed a motion for reconsideration pointing out that no
action had been taken on the Sixth Circuit's remand
order. (ECF No. 513.) The Court asked the government for a
response. (ECF No. 515.) The government agrees that the court
should issue an amended judgment with a statement of reasons
for the prior imposition of the 188-month sentence. (ECF No.
516.)
The
decision whether to reduce a sentence because of Amendment
782 rests in the discretion of the district court. United
States v. Blewett, 746 F.3d 647, 659 (6th Cir. 2013)
(“[T]he reality [is] that § 3582(c)(2) grants the
district court discretion to reduce sentences; it does not
impose a mandate on them.”) (en banc). As the
government points out, the court is not obligated to reduce a
sentence under § 3582(c). See United States v.
Howard, 644 F.3d 455, 457 (6th Cir. 2011); United
States v. Nolley, 427 Fed.Appx. 295, 296 (5th Cir. 2011)
(“The district court has no obligation to reduce a
sentence under § 3582(c)(2).”). And thus, in
granting a reduction, proportionality is not required.
Here,
the former presiding judge believed that a reduction was
warranted. And considering USSG § 1B1.10 and the §
3553(a) sentencing factors, this court agrees that a reduced
sentence of 188-months is appropriate. Drugs and guns
together present a serious and dangerous offense. Wren
supplied significant quantities of heroin to co-conspirators
and, despite having a prior felony conviction and being aware
that he could not possess a firearm, had a loaded Glock 9mm
handgun in his home. Before imposing sentence, Judge Rosen
explained that “the government proved its case beyond a
reasonable doubt, it proved its case of conspiracy to traffic
in heroin and it proved its case of Mr. Wren being a felon in
possession of a firearm and ammunition. That only leaves it
to the Court to determine what an appropriate sentence is for
this . . . very troubled and misguided young man, who at one
point in his life appeared to have some potential as an
entrepreneur in his chosen field; but, unfortunately he -
somewhere along the way, he went off on a misguided
track.” (ECF No. 347, PageID.4816-4817.)
Wren
did not accept responsibility and, at sentencing, expressed
no remorse or any coherent explanation for his conduct. His
criminal activity as a juvenile and adult demonstrated
problems with deterrence and showing respect for the law. The
seriousness of the drug and gun offenses and the danger they
posed to the community warranted a guidelines sentence. And
from the 216-month within guidelines range sentence that was
initially imposed, it is clear Judge Rosen believed that 188
months did not sufficiently achieve the purposes of the
§ 3553(a) factors. But when Wren became entitled to a
reduction in his base offense level, the court was then
willing to go down to 188 months. And while this was the top
of the amended guidelines range and not the 60th percentile,
it still represents a significant reduction in Wren's
original sentence. In other words, had Wren's original
guidelines range been only 151-188 months, the court is
confident that the sentencing judge would have gone to the
top of the range and not the 60th percentile. More
importantly, 188-months is sufficient but not greater than
necessary given the amount of heroin being supplied, the
unlawful possession of the gun, the need to deter and punish
this type of dangerous drug trafficking, and having little
sense or comfort that the Defendant is willing to change his
behavior in the future. While at the time of the reduction,
Wren had taken some educational courses in prison and
maintained employment, he had also incurred four misconduct
reports.
Thus,
having considered Wren's motion for reconsideration, the
Sixth Circuit's remand order, USSG § 1B1.10, and the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that defendant's previously imposed sentence ...