United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division
May 14, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
KATHERINE LASSWELL, Defendant.
JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge.
On February 1, 2015, Katherine Lasswell ("Lasswell") moved pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), and U.S.S.G. Amendment 782 to reduce her 84-month sentence. See [D.E. 100]. On February 9, 2015, the government responded in opposition. See [D.E. 103]. On March 3, 2015, Lasswell replied. See [D.E. 108].
The court recognizes its discretion to reduce Lasswell's sentence. The court has reviewed the entire record, considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the Sentencing Commission's policy statements, and declines to reduce Lasswell's sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 536 F.Appx. 321, 321 (4th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished); United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200-01 (4th Cir. 2010); cf. United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2013). Lasswell's criminal history includes a child-sex conviction and the failure to register as a sex-offender. See PSR [D.E. 76] ¶¶ 18-19. Notwithstanding her criminal history and serious offense conduct involving methamphetamine, the court granted the government's substantial assistance motion under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and sentenced Lasswell to 84 months' imprisonment. See [D.E. 88, 92]. Lasswell received this sentence despite having a total offense level of29, a criminal history category of ill, and an advisory guideline range of 120-135 months' imprisonment. See PSR ¶ 59. While incarcerated, Lasswell has committed four infractions, including fighting, engaging in a sexual act, stealing, and telephone abuse. See [D.E. 103] 3-6. The infractions are serious. Lasswell also has taken some positive steps while incarcerated. See [D.E. 108] 3-4. Nonetheless, reducing Lasswell's sentence would pose a danger to the community. Lasswell received the sentence that was sufficient, but not greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and the court declines to reduce it. See, e.g., Perez, 536 F.Appx. at 321.
In sum, Lasswell's motion for a sentence reduction [D.E. 100] is DENIED.