USA v. Derrick Simmon
Per Curiam OPINION filed : The district court's order denying a sentence reduction is AFFIRMED. Decision not for publication. Gilbert S. Merritt, Julia Smith Gibbons, and Bernice Bouie Donald, Circuit Judges.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0864n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DERRICK J. SIMMONS,
Nov 14, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
BEFORE: MERRITT, GIBBONS, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Derrick J. Simmons, a federal prisoner, appeals through counsel a
district court order denying a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Simmons entered a guilty plea in 2005 to three counts of possession with intent to
Due to previous controlled substance convictions, he was subject to a
mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years, which was the sentence he received. In this
motion to reduce his sentence, Simmons argued that the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the
mandatory minimum sentence applicable to his offenses, should entitle him to resentencing. The
district court determined that it was not authorized to reduce the sentence on that basis and
denied the motion. Simmons reasserts his argument before this court and also argues that his
sentence is unconstitutional.
United States v. Simmons
We review de novo a district court’s determination that it lacks authority to reduce a
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Johnson, 569 F.3d 619, 623 (6th
Unfortunately for Simmons, § 3582(c)(2) is a narrow remedy available only where a
sentencing range has been lowered retroactively by the Sentencing Commission. United States
v. Blewett, 746 F.3d 647, 656 (6th Cir. 2013) (en banc), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1779 (2014). A
reduction in the mandatory minimum sentences by Congress is not a basis for a § 3582(c)(2)
motion. See United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419, 423 (6th Cir. 2009). Constitutional
arguments also are not properly raised in a motion under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Martin,
367 F. App’x 584, 585 (6th Cir. 2010). Moreover, we have rejected the constitutional arguments
Simmons raises. Blewett, 746 F.3d at 658-60.1
Accordingly, the district court’s order denying a sentence reduction is affirmed.
However, the Sentencing Commission has now authorized the federal courts to review crack cocaine
sentences retroactively under § 3582(c)(2) and the revised sentencing guidelines beginning in November 2015. See
United States Sentencing Commission: Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines (Preliminary) (July 18, 2014)
http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendlyamendments/20140718_RFP_Amendments_Retroactivity.pdf. This makes Amendment 782 retroactive.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?