USA v. Sweatt

Filing 68

Order on Motion to Reduce Sentence re Crack Cocaine Offense - 18:3582

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DANA ROCHELLE SWEATT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:05-cr-00119 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re:

Motion at Docket 56]

I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 56, defendant Dana Rocehelle Sweatt (“Sweatt”) moves for a reduction
in her sentence based upon the two-level reduction in the guideline offense level for
sentences imposed in relation to cocaine base (“crack”) drug trafficking offenses which
has been made retroactive pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Sweatt asks that her
sentence be reduced from 84 months to 57 months. At docket 65, the United States
opposes the motion.
II. DISCUSSION
Sweatt was indicted on one count of attempting to distribute 50 grams or more of
cocaine base. She pled guilty to that charge which is subject to a ten-year mandatory
minimum sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Based on her extensive
criminal history, which placed her in Criminal History Category IV and on her Guideline
Offense Level of 29, the Guideline range for Sweatt was 121 to 151 months of
incarceration. The two-level reduction in the now advisory Guidelines would place

Sweatt at a Level 27 with a Criminal History of Category of IV. Her revised Guideline
range is 100 to 125 months.
Prior to her sentencing the United States made a motion for a downward
departure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 The motion was
granted. As a result, Sweatt received a sentence of 84 months which was below the
otherwise applicable statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months, the
guideline range of 121 to 151 months, and the 97-month sentence recommended by the
United States in its downward departure motion. It is also lower than the new advisory
Guideline range of 100 to 125 months. Under these circumstances, Sweatt is not
entitled to any further reduction in her sentence. The sentence imposed is consistent
with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), whether assessed in light of the original Guideline range or
the retroactive Guideline range.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the motion at docket 56 is DENIED.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 11th day of August 2008.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-