United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
C. DEVER III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
March 7, 2011, without a written plea agreement, Donnell
Demetrius Stanford ("Stanford") pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute more than
50 grams of cocaine base (crack) and more than 500 grams of
cocaine (count one) and possession with intent to distribute
more than 50 grams of cocaine base and a quantity of cocaine
(count three). See [D.E. 191, 297]. On October 4, 2011, the
court held Stanford's sentencing hearing. See [D.E. 263,
273, 274, 288]. At the hearing, the court adopted the facts
set forth in the Presentence Investigation Report
("PSR") and ruled on Stanford's objections. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A)-(B); Sentencing Tr. [D.E. 288]
4-71. The court calculated Stanford's total offense level
to be 37, his criminal history category to be V, and his
advisory guideline range on each count to be 324 to 405
months' imprisonment. See Sentencing Tr. at 69-72. After
thoroughly considering all relevant factors under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), the court sentenced Stanford to 360
months' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.
See id. at 76-82. Stanford appealed. On August 7,
2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed this court's judgment. See United
States v. Stanford, 492 Fed.Appx. 401, 403-05 (4th Cir.
2012) (per curiam) (unpublished).
November 9, 2015, Stanford moved (pro se) for a sentence
reduction. See [D.E. 375]. On March 28, 2016, Stanford moved
(through counsel) for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, and Amendment 782.
See [D.E. 382]. On March 30, 2016, the government responded.
See [D.E. 383]. Stanford's new advisory guideline range
on each count is 262 to 327 months' imprisonment, based
on a total offense level of 35 and a criminal history
category of V. See Resentencing Report. Stanford requests a
291-month sentence. See id.: [D.E. 382].
court has discretion under Amendment 782 to reduce
Stanford's sentence. See, e.g.. Chavez-Meza v. United
States, 138 S.Ct. 1959, 1963-68 (2018); Dillon v.
United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010); United
States v. Peters, 843 F.3d 572, 574 (4th Cir. 2016);
United States v. Patterson, 671 Fed.Appx. 105,
105-06 (4th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (unpublished); United
States v. Cole, 618 Fed.Appx. 178, 178-79 (4th Cir.
2015) (per curiam) (unpublished); United States v.
Thomas, 546 Fed.Appx. 225, 225-26 (4th Cir. 2013) (per
curiam) (unpublished); United States v. Perez, 536
Fed.Appx. 321, 321 (4th Cir. 2013) (per curiam)
(unpublished); United States v. Smalls, 720F.3dl93,
195-97 (4th Cir. 2013): United States v. Mann, 709
F.3d 301.306-07 (4th Cir. 2013): United States v.
Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010). In deciding
whether to reduce Stanford's sentence, the court finds
that Stanford engaged in serious criminal behavior. See PSR
¶¶ 11-22; Sentencing Tr. at 4-72. Moreover,
Stanford is a violent recidivist and has convictions for
resisting a public officer, fleeing to elude arrest with a
motor vehicle, assault inflicting serious injury, conspiracy
to sell and deliver cocaine, possession with intent to sell
and deliver cocaine (three counts), eluding arrest with a
motor vehicle with three aggravating factors, and possession
with intent to sell and deliver marijuana (two counts). See
PSR ¶¶ 24-33. Stanford also has performed poorly on
supervision and has essentially no work history. See
id. ¶¶ 24, 46-47. Stanford has taken some
positive steps while incarcerated on his federal sentence,
but he has been sanctioned twice for being absent from
assignment. See Resentencing Report; c£ Pepper v.
United States, 562 U.S. 476, 491(2011).
reviewed the entire record and all relevant policy
statements, the court finds that Stanford received the
sentence that was "sufficient, but not greater than
necessary" under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Further
reducing Stanford's sentence would threaten public safety
in light of his serious criminal conduct, serious criminal
history, and misconduct while incarcerated. Cf U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10, cmt. n.l(B)(ii). Thus, the court denies
Stanford's motion for reduction of sentence under
Amendment 782. See, e.g., Chavez-Meza, 138 S.Ct. at
1963-68; Patterson, 671 Fed.Appx. at 105-06;
Cole, 618 Fed.Appx. at 178-79; Thomas, 546
Fed.Appx. at 225-26; Perez, 536 Fed.Appx. at 321.
11, 2018, Stanford moved for reconsideration of this
court's order of May 23, 2014, dismissing Stanford's
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See [D.E. 385]. Stanford
has not received authorization from the Fourth Circuit for
another motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Although Stanford
couches his motion as one under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, Stanford cannot use Rule 60 to avoid the
legal effect of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). See
United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206-07
(4th Cir. 2003). Thus, the court lacks jurisdiction to
consider Stanford's motion. See 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)(A); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147,
152-53 (2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, the court dismisses
the motion for reconsideration and denies a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Alternatively, even
if the court has jurisdiction and considers the merits under
Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court
denies the motion for reconsideration under the governing
standard. See, e.g., Moses v.
Joyner, 815 F.3d163, 167-69 (4thCir. 2016); Aikens
v. Ingram, 652F.3d496.500-01 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
the court DENIES Stanford's motions for reduction of
sentence [D.E. 375, 382], DISMISSES Stanford's motion for
reconsideration [D.E. ...