United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Lynchburg Division
K. MOON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE
Antonio Dewayne Wood (“Defendant”) has filed a
motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to the First Step
Act of 2018. (Dkts. 156, 162). The motion has been fully
briefed and is ripe for review. For the following reasons,
the Court will grant Defendant's motion.
Superseding Indictment was filed against Defendant on May 14,
2009. (Dkt. 75). On July 28, 2019, he pled guilty to Count 3
of the Superseding Indictment, distributing or possessing
with the intent to distribute or aiding and abetting in
distribution or possession with intent to distribute, 5 grams
or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. (Dkt. 89).
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), this offense
triggered a five year mandatory minimum and a forty year
maximum. Defendant later filed a motion to reduce his
sentence pursuant to Amendment 750, but it was denied due to
his career offender status. (Dkts. 124, 125, 126). Defendant
then filed this motion pursuant to the newly enacted First
Step Act. (Dkt. 156, 162).
404 of the First Step Act of 2018 permits “a court that
imposed a sentence for a covered offense” to
“impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of
the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-220; 124
Stat. 2372) were in effect at the time the covered offense
was committed.” Pub. L. No. 115-015, § 404, 132
Stat. 015, 015 (2018). A “covered offense” is
defined as “a violation of a Federal criminal statute,
the statutory penalties for which were modified by section 2
or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-220;
124 Stat. 2372), that was committed before August 3,
of sentences under the First Step Act are governed by 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B), which states: “The court
may modify an imposed term of imprisonment to the extent
otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” In determining if
modification is appropriate, the Court will first address
whether a reduction is consistent with the First Step Act,
and will then “consider whether the authorized
reduction is warranted, either in whole or in part, according
to the facts set forth in § 3553(a).” Dillon
v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010)
parties agree that Defendant's offense of conviction is a
“covered offense” as defined by the First Step
Act. The offense was committed before August 3, 2010 and the
applicable penalties were modified by section 2 of the Fair
Sentencing Act, which “reduced the statutory penalties
for cocaine based offenses” in order to
“alleviate the severe sentencing disparity between
crack and powder cocaine.” United States v.
Peters, 843 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2016). As relevant
in this case, section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act increased
the drug quantities necessary to trigger mandatory minimum
sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). Pub. L. No.
111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010). Specifically, the threshold
requirement to trigger the mandatory minimum sentence of ten
years under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) was increased from
5 grams to 28 grams. Id.
United States chose not to seek a § 851 enhancement, but
the parties agreed Defendant would was likely to be treated
as a career offender under the Guidelines. (Dkt. 168 at 2).
After accounting for the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.1, and acceptance of responsibility, the
sentencing guideline range was 188 to 235 months'
imprisonment. (Dkt. 162). The Court imposed a sentence of 160
months' imprisonment. (Dkt. 103). Under the First Step
Act, Defendant's guideline range is 151 to 188 months,
and a comparable variance would result in a sentence of 129
months. (Dkt. 161).
Court has been advised that Defendant's projected release
date is January 10, 2021, and, as of February 13, 2019, he
has served approximately 118 months of his sentence. (Dkt.
161, 162). The Government does not dispute that a reduction
is appropriate in this case, (dkt. 168), and Defendant
requests that “the Court adopt the analysis provided in
the Addendum to the Presentence Report, ” and reduce
his sentence to 129 months. (Dkt. 162). After consideration
of the § 3553(a) factors as well as the parties'
arguments, the Court determines that a reduction of
Defendant's sentence to 129 months, but not less than
time served is appropriate. Defendant's sentence will be
followed by a term of supervised release of 3 years. All
other terms of the original sentence will remain the same.
Clerk is directed to send copies of this memorandum opinion
and the accompanying order to Defendant, all counsel of
record, the United States Probation Office, and the United
States Marshals Service, for delivery to the Bureau of
 Although subsection 3582(c)(1)(B) does
not reference 3553(a) as do other 3582(c)subsections, that
alone does not bar consideration of other factors. While the
Dillon Court analyzed the procedures under §
3582(c)(2), the language quoted is reflected in §
3582(c)(1)(B). Additionally, this approach is mirrored by the
Fourth Circuit's analysis under Rule 35(b), which allows
the Court to “consider other sentencing factors . . .
when deciding the extent of a reduction.” United
States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 190, 195 (4th Cir. 2012);
see also United States Sentencing Commission, Office
of Education and Sentencing Practice, FIRST STEP