Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bushway DeSouza v. United States, 1st Cir. (1993)
Bushway DeSouza v. United States, 1st Cir. (1993)
Bushway DeSouza v. United States, 1st Cir. (1993)
and
Jean B. We
___________
Summary Disposit
____________________
June 14, 1993
____________________
Per Curiam.
__________
guilty
to attempt
violation of
and conspiracy
21 U.S.C.
1992,
she received
level
for acceptance
3E1.1.
In
846.
to distribute
cocaine in
At sentencing on
August 11,
two-level reduction
of
responsibility
1, 1992, section
After the
28
to
2255
in base
under
offense
U.S.S.G.
Effective November
to permit an
additional
Desouza pled
vacate,
have to
aside
or
correct
her
The district
we
considered whether
We now affirm.
an
amendment
4B1.1, could
3 (1st Cir.
of the
career
be retroactively
which permitted
career offenders
a reduction of
two levels
our
Commission's
conclusion
[was] change."
to
be confirmed
explanation of
by
the amendment;
at 5.
We
the
Sentencing
its explanation
-2-
determining
the offense
In addition, U.S.S.G.
amendments intended
to be
level
under
section
not include
the amendment
that
the
of section
amended
retroactively.
section
analysis
Desouza
281-83.
in
4B1.1
Havener
_______
relies
Sentencing Guidelines.
C, at
Accordingly,
could
we concluded
not
be
applied
Id.
___
The
amendment
4B1.1.
on
is
controls
Amendment
here.
459
to
review of
The
the
Appendix
that it
replaced it
with the
present section
3E1.1.
The new
responsibility, albeit
amended section
reduction in
the
assisted
own
permitted an
form.
reduction,
before the
by
certain
level
of
was taken,
investigating or
taking
one-level
offense
two-level reduction
authorities in
misconduct
had an
In addition,
entirely new
two-level
greater
3E1.1
in modified
steps
16 or
and had
prosecuting their
such
as
timely
459 substantively
and
the
Sentencing
Commission's
-3-
explanation
of
the
purpose
of
the amendment
confirms
that.
The
of
acceptance
one
of
can
for
responsibility
government in
misconduct."
level
certain
an additional
defendants
includes
assistance
designate
Sentencing
whose
to
the
of their own
substantive
change
as
retroactive,
the
for
(listing
Accordingly, the
retroactive application.
amendments designated
district court
Desouza's
sentence even
under the
new version
reduction.
if
as retroactive).1
had no authority
it thought
U.S.S.G.
to modify
that Desouza
would
additional one-level
--,
WL
98298
(2d
Cir.
1993)
Caceda, -______
(applying
this
Desouza an
may not be
additional one-
____________________
1. Where the Sentencing Commission designates a substantive
change as retroactive, the court "may" reduce a previously
imposed term in accordance with the change if the reduction
is consistent with general sentencing factors and applicable
policy statements of the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2). Unless a request for a reduction falls within
this rubric, or one of the other exceptions specified in the
statute, the court "may not modify a term of imprisonment . .
. ." 18 U.S.C.
3582(c).
-4-
The judgment of
-5-