govinfo:USCOURTS-paed-2_06-cr-00140-3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION 
 : 
 : 
 vs. : NO. 06-0140-01 
 : 
 : 
RAYMOND MAINOR : 
 
 
M E M O R A N D U M 
STENGEL, C. J. October 26, 2017 
 Raymond Mainor, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Complex at Allenwood, 
has filed a pro se motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Amendment 782 to the 
United States Sentencing Guidelines, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The 
government has responded. For the following reasons, I will deny the motion. 
 On October 24, 2007, a jury convicted Mr. Mainor of possession of a firearm in 
furtherance of drug trafficking; of being a felon in possession of a firearm; of multiple 
counts of distribution of, and possession with intent to distribute, cocaine and crack-
cocaine; and three counts of distribution of, and possession with intent to distribute, 
within 1,000 feet of a school, cocaine and crack-cocaine. 
 Before sentencing, the Probation Office determined that the base offense level for 
the combined drug quantities was 36, with no adjustments. The combination of that level 
with Mr. Mainor’s criminal history category of II yielded a sentencing guideline range of 

2 
 
210-2621 months’ imprisonment. However, there was a mandatory minimum sentence 
on Count Two of two hundred forty months, and a mandatory minimum consecutive 
sentence on Count Seven of sixty months, bringing the effective guideline sentence to 
300 months. 
 On April 24, 2008, I sentenced Mr. Mainor to 240 months’ imprisonment on the 
drug offenses and sixty months’ imprisonment on the firearm charge to run consecutively 
for a total of 300 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a total of twenty years of 
supervised release, a fine of $60,000, and a special assessment of $600. 
 Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3582(c)(2) provides: 
[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a 
term of imprisonment based on a sentencin g range that 
has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing 
Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion 
of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 
or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of 
imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in 
section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if 
such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy 
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 
 
 Under Section 1B1.10: “In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of 
imprisonment, and the guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been 
lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (d) 
below, the court may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment as provided by 18 
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 
 
1 I note that the government’s response to this motion incorrectly indicates that the sentencing 
guideline range was 57 to 71 months. See Document #230 at 3. 

3 
 
 In Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010), the Supreme Court of the United 
States addressed the process for application of a retroactive guideline amendment, 
emphasizing that Section 1B1.10 is binding. The Court required district courts to follow 
a two-step approach: 
At step one, § 3582(c)(2) requires the court to follow the 
Commission’s instructions in § 1B1.10 to determine the 
prisoner’s eligibility for a sentence modification and the 
extent of the reduction authorized. Specifically, § 
1B1.10(b)(1) requires the court to begin by 
“determin[ing] the amended guideline range that would 
have been applicable to the defendant” had the relevant 
amendment been in effect at the time of the initial 
sentencing. “In making such determination, the court 
shall substitute only the amendments listed in subsection 
(c) for the corresponding guideline provisions that were 
applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall 
leave all other guideline application decisions 
unaffected.” Ibid. 
 
Consistent with the limited nature of § 3582(c)(2) 
proceedings, § 1B1.10(b)(2) also confines the extent of 
the reduction authorized. Courts generally may “not 
reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . to a term that is less than the 
minimum of the amended guideline range” produced by 
the substitution. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). . . . 
 
At step two of the inquiry, § 3582(c)(2) instructs a court 
to consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and 
determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction 
authorized by reference to the policies relevant at step 
one is warranted in whole or in part under the particular 
circumstances of the case. 
 
Id. at 827. 
 I note that Amendment 782 does lower Mr. Manor’s Section 2D1.1 offense level 
from 36 to 34, and his guideline range to 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment. This 

4 
 
amended range, however, falls below the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 300 
months, which becomes the guideline range.2 The Sentencing Commission has no 
authority to alter a statutory mandatory penalty. Amendment 782 only altered the offense 
levels for drug offenses, but could not change the statutory mandatory minimums as are 
present here. The retroactive amendment has not altered this provision, and therefore 
both the statutory mandatory penalty and the recommended guideline sentence remain 
exactly what they were at the time of the original sentencing proceeding. See § 
1B1.10(a)(2) (“A reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not consistent 
with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if 
. . . (B) an amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have the effect of lowering the 
defendant’s applicable guideline range.”) 
 In Application Note 1(A) of 18 U.S.C. Appx § 1B1.10, the Sentencing 
Commission instructed: 
“Accordingly, a reduction in the defendant’s term of 
imprisonment is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 
3582(c) and is not consistent with this policy statement if: 
(i) none of the amendments listed in subsection (d) is 
applicable to the defendant; or (ii) an amendment listed in 
subsection (d) is applicable to the defendant but the 
amendment does not have the effect of lowering the 
defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the 
operation of another guideline or another statutory 
provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of 
imprisonment.)” 
 
 
2 Where the statutory mandatory penalty was higher than the original guideline range, the 
statutory minimum became the guideline sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b) (“Where a 
statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline 
range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.”) 

5 
 
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 app. note 1(A) (emphasis added). As a matter of law, Mr. Mainor’s 
sentence cannot be below the statutory minimum, and no reduction is allowed. Thus, I 
will deny his motion in its entirety. 
 An appropriate Order follows. 

Passage view · GavelSight