United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case is before the Court on motions filed by Defendants Dayon
Shaver and Arlene Combs pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). For the reasons stated below, both motions
Court assumes familiarity with this case's factual
background and lengthy procedural history. On November 19,
2015, Shaver pled guilty to one count of conspiracy, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. That same day, Combs pled
guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Several months later, on March
21, 2016, the Court sentenced Shaver to 46 months'
imprisonment and two years' supervised release. The next
day, the Court sentenced Combs to 240 months'
imprisonment and two years' supervised release.
and Combs have since filed motions pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). Both Defendants argue that Amendment 794
to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines entitles them to a sentence
reduction. Amendment 794, which became effective November 1,
2015, amended the commentary to Guideline § 3B1.2 to
“provide additional guidance to sentencing courts in
determining whether a mitigating role adjustment
applies.” U.S.S.G. Supp. to App'x C, Amend. 794,
Reason for Amendment. Amendment 794 was incorporated into the
2015 edition of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, on which the
Court relied when it calculated both Defendants'
Guideline imprisonment range. See Docket No. 568
(Combs PSR) ¶ 48 (noting that 2015 edition of Guidelines
Manual was used); Docket No. 567 (Shaver PSR) ¶ 21
(same). See also U.S.S.G. 3B1.2, Historical Note
Shaver nor Combs is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence
reduction because the Court sentenced both Defendants after
Amendment 794's effective date. Section 3582(c)(2) allows
a court to reduce a sentence “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.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). Section 3582(c)(2), in
other words, authorizes a sentence reduction only in cases
where an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines became
effective after a defendant was sentenced. The
Guidelines implicitly reinforce this point by instructing
courts to “determine the amended guideline range that
would have been applicable to the defendant if the
amendment(s) to the guidelines . . . had been in
effect at the time the defendant was sentenced.”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) (2016) (emphasis added). See
also Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 530 (2011)
(noting that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) “seeks to
isolate whatever marginal effect the since-rejected
Guideline had on the defendant's sentence”)
when a defendant is sentenced after an Amendment to the
Sentencing Guidelines became effective, that Amendment may
not be the basis for a § 3582(c)(2) motion. The reason
for this is simple: there is “no way the . . . court
could ‘consider the sentence that it would have imposed
had [the relevant Amendment] been in effect at the time of
sentencing'”-as Guideline § 1B1.10(b)(1)
requires-when the Amendment on which a defendant bases her
§ 3582(c)(2) motions “was in effect at
the time of sentencing.” United States v.
Lykes, 73 F.3d 140, 142 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b) (1995)) (bracketed language changed
from original; emphasis in original). Thus, because both
Shaver and Combs were sentenced after Amendment 794 became
effective, neither Defendant is eligible for a sentence
reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
reasons stated above, the Court denies both Shaver's
§ 3582(c)(2) motion (Docket No. 616) and Combs'
§ 3582(c)(2) motion (Docket No. 624).
 Shaver and Combs filed separate
motions (Docket Nos. 616 and 624, respectively). Both
motions, however, implicate the same legal question. The
Court therefore resolves both motions in this Decision and
 Because the Court denies both §
3582(c)(2) motions on this ground, the Court need not address
whether Amendment 794 is retroactive. Likewise, the Court
need not address whether, assuming the Amendment is
retroactive, either Shaver or Combs is otherwise eligible
for, or should receive, a sentence reduction. See
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (as to Defendant Combs).
See also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827
(2010) (noting that, after the district court determines
whether a defendant is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2)
sentence reduction, the district court must “consider
any applicable § 3553(a) factors and ...