The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
On November 1, 2004, pursuant to an Agreement between the parties, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the Superseding Indictment, charging that he and his co-Defendant, aiding and abetting each other, knowingly and intentionally possessed with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. See Minute Entry dated November 1, 2004. At the time of sentencing, the Court found that Defendant's total offense level was 29 and his criminal history category was V, resulting in a presumptive United States Sentencing Guidelines range of 140 to 175 months. However, a statutory minimum sentence of twenty years (240 months) applied. The Government moved for a downward departure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") § 5K1.1 based on Defendant's substantial assistance. The Court granted the motion and, on July 11, 2006, imposed a sentence of 120 months' incarceration. See Minute Entry dated July 11, 2006.
Currently before the Court is Defendant's motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, in light of Amendment 706 to the Guidelines reducing the base offense level listed on the drug quantity table for most cocaine base (crack cocaine) offenses. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Defendant also relies on the Second Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Williams, 551 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2009), to support his motion. See Dkt. No. 145. The Government opposes the motion on the ground that "there is no authority for a sentence reduction in this case because [D]efendant's sentence was not 'based on' the old crack cocaine Guidelines as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)." See Dkt. No. 152 at 1.
The statute that provides authority for a court to resentence a defendant under these circumstances is 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which provides that, in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added).
The applicable policy statement that the Sentencing Commission issued is U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, "Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amendment Guideline Range (Policy Statement)," which provides in pertinent part as follows:
(a) Authority. --* * * * * * * * * *
(2) Exclusions. -- A reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if -- * * * *
(B) [the crack cocaine sentence reduction amendment] does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.
(3) Limitation. -- Consistent with subsection (b), proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)-(3).
In cases such as this one, where a statutory minimum sentence exceeds the applicable Guidelines range, the court must set the Guidelines sentence at the statutorily required minimum. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b); United States v. Johnson, No. 07-1930, 517 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir. 2008); Williams, 551 F.3d at 186 (finding that "the 240-month mandatory minimum 'subsume[d] and displace[d] the otherwise applicable [97 to 121 month] guideline range.'" (quoting United States v. Cordero, 313 F.3d 161, 166 (3rd Cir. 2002))). Thus, when a defendant has a Guidelines range below the mandatory minimum before ...