United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case comes before the court on Defendant's pro se Motion
to Reduce Sentence Under First Step Act of 2018. ECF No. 155.
The United States Probation Office filed a Sentence Reduction
Report (“SRR”) indicating Defendant does not
qualify for relief under the Act. ECF No. 156. The Government
filed a response in opposition to Defendant's motion. ECF
No. 159. Thereafter, the court entered a Text Order notifying
Defendant of his deadline for filing any further argument
(ECF No. 160), and Defendant filed a pro se motion to
amend/correct sentence under Rule 52(b). (ECF No. 162).
court has reviewed the above filings as well as the
Indictment (ECF No. 30), Plea Agreement (ECF No. 54), and
PreSentence Report (“PSR”) (ECF No. 156-1), and
concludes that Defendant is not eligible for relief under the
First Step Act.
was charged with one count of possession with intent to
distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and 500 grams
or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). ECF No. 30.
Defendant thereafter entered into a Plea Agreement to plead
guilty. ECF No. 54. The court accepted his guilty plea on
July 9, 2013. ECF No. 59. The PSR noted Defendant and his
co-defendant were found to have 18.47 kilograms of
methamphetamine in a vehicle during a traffic stop.
2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act to reduce the
disparity in the treatment of cocaine base and powder cocaine
offenses by increasing the quantities of cocaine base
required to trigger 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and
(B). See Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (emphasis
added). The First Step Act of 2018 applied these provisions
of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactively. See Pub. L. No.
115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Under § 404 of the First Step
Act, a court that imposed a sentence for an offense covered
under the Fair Sentencing Act “may, on motion of the
defendant, . . . impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2
and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 . . . were in effect
at the time the offense was committed.” Id.
Consideration for a reduction in sentence is not available
under the First Step Act “if the sentence was
previously imposed . . . in accordance with the amendments
made by sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of
2010.” Id. at §404(b).
court will deny Defendant's motion. The record reflects
Defendant agreed to plead guilty and did plead guilty to
possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. There
is no indication he was involved with cocaine base, the only
substance affected by this portion of the First Step Act.
First Step Act amended penalties for cocaine base only.
Because Defendant was not convicted of a cocaine base
offense, he is not eligible for relief. For reasons set forth
above, Defendant's Motion for Relief Under First Step Act
(ECF No. 155) is denied.
motion to Amend/Correct his sentence under Rule 52(b) (ECF
No. 162) is also denied. Defendant argues his guideline range
as calculated at sentencing was incorrect, because he was
sentenced as a Level 36, criminal history category I
(guideline range of 188-235 months), but should have been
sentenced as a Level 35, criminal history category I, within
a guideline range of 168-210 months. Id. at 2. The
PSR reflects a total offense level of 35 and a criminal
history category II, for a guideline range of 188-235 months.
ECF No. 156-1. Thus, Defendant's argument regarding the
total offense level is misplaced: it was not the difference
in the total offense level from 35 to 36, but the criminal
history category from I to II, that resulted in the guideline
range of 188-235 months in his case. The Statement of Reasons
(“SOR”) reflects the correct total offense level
of 35 and the correct guideline range of 188-235 months.
However, there is a typographical error in the criminal
history category portion of the SOR. Instead of criminal
history category II, as calculated in the PSR, the SOR
reflects a criminal history category of I. The Clerk is
therefore directed to file an Amended SOR correcting the
criminal history category to II, as calculated in the
 This filing does not appear to be a
direct response to the court's order, as it does not
address the First Step Act. However, the court will address
this motion below.
 At sentencing, there was no objection
by Defendant to the criminal history category of II as