USA v. Rainey et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
) 3:05-cr-00108-6 JWS
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION
)
JOSHUA PRICE PLUID, ) [RE: Motion at doc. 673]
)
Defendant. )
)
At docket 673 defendant Joshua Price Pluid (“Pluid”) moves for a reduction in his
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The motion is supported by the Federal
Defender’s memorandum at docket 674 and a memorandum Pluid prepared pro se at
docket 674-1. The United States opposes at docket 677. T his court is authorized by
§ 3582(c) to reduce a defendant’s sentence in certain circumstances.
In 2006, Pluid was convicted of drug trafficking and possession of a firearm in
relation to his drug trafficking offense. This court sentenced him to 84 months on the
drug trafficking offense, which was well below the bottom of his Guideline range. This
court also sentenced him to a mandatory consecutive 60 months on the firearms
charge for a total sentence of 144 months. Pluid asks the court to reduce his drug
trafficking sentence from 84 months to 72 months pursuant to Amendment 782 to the
Sentencing Guidelines, which would yield a total sentence of 132 months.
Case 3:05-cr-00108-JWS Document 678 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 2

Amendment 782 reduced the guideline offense level for drug crimes by two
levels. Amendment 782 was made retroactive. Retroactive application of guideline
changes is subject to the limitation in Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.10, a limitation which
this court is bound to recognize. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 821 (2010).
Since its amendment in 2011, Guideline § 1B1.10 has provided (with an
exception inapplicable to Pluid) that “the court shall not reduce the def endant’s term of
imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is
less than the minimum of the amended guideline range . . . .” If this limitation applies,
Pluid’s drug sentence cannot be reduced, because the sentence orig inally imposed for
the drug trafficking offense is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.
Pluid points to the version of § 1B1.10 in effect prior to November 1, 2011, which
lacked the limitation in the current version of § 1B1.10. Relying on an Illinois district
court case, United States v. King, 2013 WL 4008629 (N.D. Ill. 2013), Pluid argues that
applying the limitation in the current version of § 1B1.10 to him would violate the
Constitution’s Ex Post Facto clause. Pluid’s argument is foreclosed by United States v.
Water, 771 F.3d 679, 681 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the motion at docket 673 is
DENIED.
DATED this 5th day of March 2015.
/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-
Case 3:05-cr-00108-JWS Document 678 Filed 03/05/15 Page 2 of 2