Sentencing Commission Report on Crack Cocaine Sentence Reductions 2008
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
U.S. Sentencing Commission Preliminary Crack Cocaine Retroactivity Data Report December 2008 Data Introduction As part of its ongoing mission, the United States Sentencing Commission provides Congress, the judiciary, the executive branch, and the general public with data extracted and analyzed from sentencing documents submitted by courts to the Commission.1 Data is reported on an annual basis in the Commission’s Annual Report and Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics.2 The Commission also reports preliminary data for an on-going fiscal year in order to provide real-time analysis of sentencing practices in the federal courts. Since 2005, the Commission has published a series of quarterly reports that are similar in format and methodology to tables and figures produced in the Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics or in the Commission’s Final Report on the Impact of the United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing.3 The quarterly reports contain cumulative data for the on-going fiscal year (i.e., data from the start of the fiscal year through the most current quarter). This report is another in the Commission's efforts to provide analysis of federal sentencing practices. It provides data concerning recent court decisions considering motions to reduce the length of imprisonment for certain offenders convicted prior to November 1, 2007 of offenses involving crack cocaine. On May 1, 2007, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a) and (p), the Commission submitted to Congress amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines that became effective on November 1, 2007. One of those amendments, Amendment 706, modified the drug quantity thresholds in the Drug Quantity Table of §2D1.1 so as to assign, for crack cocaine offenses, base offense levels corresponding to guideline ranges that include the statutory mandatory minimum penalties. Crack cocaine offenses for quantities above and below the mandatory minimum threshold quantities similarly were adjusted downward by two levels. The amendment also included a mechanism to determine a combined base offense level in an offense involving crack cocaine and other controlled substances. On December 11, 2007, the Commission voted to approve Amendment 713 which amended §1B1.10 of the guidelines to include Amendment 706, as amended by Amendment 711, in the list of amendments that apply retroactively. The Commission voted to make Amendment 713 effective on March 3, 2008. As a result, some incarcerated offenders are eligible to receive a reduction in their sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) pursuant to Amendment 706. 1 In each felony or Class A misdemeanor case sentenced in federal court, sentencing courts are required to submit the following documents to the Commission: the judgment and commitment order, the statement of reasons, the plea agreement (if applicable), the indictment or other charging document, and the presentence report. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(w). 2 See the Commission’s website, www.ussc.gov, for electronic copies of the 1995-2007 Annual Report and Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. 3 See www.ussc.gov/bf.htm for an electronic copy of the Commission’s Final Report on the Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing. This report provides information on all cases reported to the Commission in which the court considered a motion to reduce a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for an offender convicted of an offense involving crack cocaine. The data in this report represents information based on court documentation received and coded at the U.S. Sentencing Commission by December 8, 2008. Users of this information are cautioned that the data are preliminary only and subject to change as the Commission receives, analyzes, and reports on additional cases. In particular, the reader is cautioned with respect to drawing conclusions based on data concerning the denial of motions for sentence reduction pursuant to the crack cocaine amendment, as the judicial districts are employing various methods to prioritize the review of these motions. For example, in many districts, contested motions have not been decided by the court. Consequently, the data the Commission has received to date concerning cases in which the motion for a sentence reduction was denied may not be representative of the decisions that ultimately may be made in all districts or the nation as a whole. Table 1 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICATION OF RETROACTIVE CRACK COCAINE AMENDMENT BY DISTRICT District TOTAL Eastern Virginia Middle Florida Western Virginia South Carolina Western Texas Eastern Missouri Northern Florida Southern Florida Eastern Louisiana Northern Texas Eastern Texas Middle Georgia Southern Georgia Southern Alabama Southern Texas Central Illinois Western North Carolina Middle Pennsylvania Southern New York Northern Indiana Southern West Virginia Western Louisiana Nebraska Northern Ohio Northern West Virginia Western Missouri Southern Illinois Eastern Pennsylvania Maryland Connecticut Southern Mississippi Southern Ohio Northern Illinois Kansas Northern Alabama Eastern North Carolina District of Columbia Minnesota Western New York Western Tennessee Eastern Tennessee Eastern Arkansas Puerto Rico Southern Iowa Eastern Michigan Northern New York N 17,168 1,113 1,065 800 741 567 479 430 400 396 396 395 356 355 342 339 307 280 276 275 254 250 250 247 243 235 227 225 211 208 203 197 193 189 186 183 179 172 172 165 165 156 149 146 144 135 129 Granted N % 12,119 70.6 679 620 511 601 401 421 201 234 186 231 335 285 187 234 255 139 188 180 118 205 192 154 207 211 230 137 219 190 153 139 179 174 176 184 97 141 163 147 106 121 122 102 60 80 130 107 61.0 58.2 63.9 81.1 70.7 87.9 46.7 58.5 47.0 58.3 84.8 80.1 52.7 68.4 75.2 45.3 67.1 65.2 42.9 80.7 76.8 61.6 83.8 86.8 97.9 60.4 97.3 90.0 73.6 68.5 90.9 90.2 93.1 98.9 53.0 78.8 94.8 85.5 64.2 73.3 78.2 68.5 41.1 55.6 96.3 82.9 Denied N % 5,049 29.4 434 445 289 140 166 58 229 166 210 165 60 71 168 108 84 168 92 96 157 49 58 96 40 32 5 90 6 21 55 64 18 19 13 2 86 38 9 25 59 44 34 47 86 64 5 22 39.0 41.8 36.1 18.9 29.3 12.1 53.3 41.5 53.0 41.7 15.2 19.9 47.3 31.6 24.8 54.7 32.9 34.8 57.1 19.3 23.2 38.4 16.2 13.2 2.1 39.6 2.7 10.0 26.4 31.5 9.1 9.8 6.9 1.1 47.0 21.2 5.2 14.5 35.8 26.7 21.8 31.5 58.9 44.4 3.7 17.1 SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary 2008-2009 Datafiles, USSCFY08-USSCFY09. District Eastern Kentucky Massachusetts Eastern Wisconsin Eastern New York Western Wisconsin Colorado Western Michigan Northern Iowa Northern Georgia Maine Northern Mississippi Western Kentucky Middle North Carolina Western Pennsylvania New Jersey Eastern California New Hampshire Western Arkansas Middle Alabama Southern Indiana Western Oklahoma Northern Oklahoma Rhode Island Alaska Central California Nevada Western Washington Middle Louisiana New Mexico Northern California Hawaii Middle Tennessee Vermont Oregon Utah Eastern Oklahoma Delaware Eastern Washington Southern California Montana Virgin Islands Idaho Arizona South Dakota Wyoming N 128 125 122 117 113 110 106 106 106 104 101 95 93 89 86 86 85 78 77 71 62 56 55 49 48 47 46 38 34 30 28 25 23 19 16 15 13 12 10 8 4 3 2 1 1 Granted N 69 97 90 66 89 59 46 106 61 60 101 63 79 81 84 85 46 51 71 39 62 28 42 29 40 41 46 32 34 30 25 25 23 18 15 12 13 5 10 4 4 2 2 1 1 % 53.9 77.6 73.8 56.4 78.8 53.6 43.4 100.0 57.5 57.7 100.0 66.3 84.9 91.0 97.7 98.8 54.1 65.4 92.2 54.9 100.0 50.0 76.4 59.2 83.3 87.2 100.0 84.2 100.0 100.0 89.3 100.0 100.0 94.7 93.8 80.0 100.0 41.7 100.0 50.0 100.0 66.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 Denied N 59 28 32 51 24 51 60 0 45 44 0 32 14 8 2 1 39 27 6 32 0 28 13 20 8 6 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 3 0 7 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 % 46.1 22.4 26.2 43.6 21.2 46.4 56.6 0.0 42.5 42.3 0.0 33.7 15.1 9.0 2.3 1.2 45.9 34.6 7.8 45.1 0.0 50.0 23.6 40.8 16.7 12.8 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 5.3 6.3 20.0 0.0 58.3 0.0 50.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 2 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICATION OF RETROACTIVE CRACK COCAINE AMENDMENT BY JUDICIAL CIRCUIT Circuit TOTAL N 17,168 Granted 12,119 Denied 5,049 FOURTH CIRCUIT 3,899 2,774 1,125 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 3,314 1,990 1,324 FIFTH CIRCUIT 2,679 1,874 805 EIGHTH CIRCUIT 1,603 1,252 351 SEVENTH CIRCUIT 1,281 957 324 SIXTH CIRCUIT 1,246 961 285 SECOND CIRCUIT 912 559 353 THIRD CIRCUIT 679 552 127 FIRST CIRCUIT 515 305 210 TENTH CIRCUIT 480 395 85 NINTH CIRCUIT 388 337 51 D.C. CIRCUIT 172 163 9 SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary 2008-2009 Datafiles, USSCFY08-USSCFY09. Table 3 APPLICATION OF RETROACTIVE CRACK COCAINE AMENDMENT BY YEAR OF ORIGINAL SENTENCE1 Fiscal Year Total N Total 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 16,789 272 2,267 2,303 2,048 1,761 1,628 1,249 1,023 934 730 574 445 407 294 274 215 155 85 81 44 Granted N 11,875 89 1,640 1,736 1,465 1,291 1,165 903 732 653 525 382 297 280 192 155 133 101 54 49 33 % 70.7 32.7 72.3 75.4 71.5 73.3 71.6 72.3 71.6 69.9 71.9 66.6 66.7 68.8 65.3 56.6 61.9 65.2 63.5 60.5 75.0 Denied N 4,914 183 627 567 583 470 463 346 291 281 205 192 148 127 102 119 82 54 31 32 11 1 % 29.3 67.3 27.7 24.6 28.5 26.7 28.4 27.7 28.4 30.1 28.1 33.4 33.3 31.2 34.7 43.4 38.1 34.8 36.5 39.5 25.0 Of the 17,168 cases, 379 were excluded from this analysis because the case cannot be matched with an original case in the Commission's records. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary 2008-2009 Datafiles, USSCFY08-USSCFY09. Table 4 ORIGIN OF GRANTED MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION DUE TO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF CRACK COCAINE AMENDMENT1 Defendant CIRCUIT TOTAL Director BOP2 Court N 10,986 N 8,917 % 81.2 N 0 % 0.0 N 2,069 % 18.8 D.C. CIRCUIT 142 139 97.9 0 0.0 3 2.1 FIRST CIRCUIT 299 248 82.9 0 0.0 51 17.1 SECOND CIRCUIT 528 342 64.8 0 0.0 186 35.2 THIRD CIRCUIT 465 459 98.7 0 0.0 6 1.3 FOURTH CIRCUIT 2,533 2,025 79.9 0 0.0 508 20.1 FIFTH CIRCUIT 1,600 1,153 72.1 0 0.0 447 27.9 SIXTH CIRCUIT 874 754 86.3 0 0.0 120 13.7 SEVENTH CIRCUIT 932 904 97.0 0 0.0 28 3.0 1,200 1,112 92.7 0 0.0 88 7.3 NINTH CIRCUIT 266 240 90.2 0 0.0 26 9.8 TENTH CIRCUIT 387 371 95.9 0 0.0 16 4.1 1,760 1,170 66.5 0 0.0 590 33.5 EIGHTH CIRCUIT ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 1 Of the 12,119 cases in which the court granted a motion for a sentence reduction due to retroactive application of the crack cocaine amendment, 1,180 were excluded from this analysis because the information received by the Commission prevented a determination of motion origin. Additionally, courts may cite multiple origins for a motion; consequently, the total number of origins cited generally exceeds the total number of cases. In this table, 10,986 origins were cited for the 10,939 cases. 2 In six cases, documents provided to the Commission indicated that the Bureau of Prisons Director made a motion. Those cases appear to be clerical errors. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary 2008-2009 Datafiles, USSCFY08-USSCFY09. Table 5 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFENDERS CONSIDERED FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION DUE TO APPLICATION OF RETROACTIVE CRACK COCAINE AMENDMENT Denied1 Granted Race/Ethnicity White Black Hispanic Other Total Total 748 11,255 946 112 13,061 N 690 10,215 853 105 11,863 % 5.8 86.1 7.2 0.9 N 58 1,040 93 7 1,198 % 4.8 86.8 7.8 0.6 Citizenship U.S. Citizen Non-Citizen Total 12,228 689 12,917 11,091 628 11,719 94.6 5.4 1,137 61 1,198 94.9 5.1 12,307 840 13,147 11,178 768 11,946 93.6 6.4 1,129 72 1,201 94.0 6.0 30 30 Gender Male Female Total Average Age 30 1 The 1,201 offenders represented in this column are those whom the Commission previously identified as eligible to seek a sentence reduction but whose petition for a reduction was denied by the court. Of the remaining 3,848 cases in which the court denied the request for a sentence reduction, 2,590 were excluded from this analysis because the offender was not previously identified as eligible to seek a sentence reduction for one or more reasons (see 'Analysis of the Impact of the Crack Cocaine Amendment If Made Retroactive' (October 3, 2007) available at www.ussc.gov). Of the remaining 1,258 cases, 216 were excluded from this analysis because the offender had been identified as released or projected to be released prior to November 1, 2007 and so was excluded from the Commission's prior analysis of eligible offenders, 334 were excluded from this analysis because the offender was not sentenced for a drug offense, 573 were excluded from this analysis because crack cocaine was not involved in the offense, and 135 were excluded from this analysis because the reason for the court's decision cannot yet be determined. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary 2008-2009 Datafiles, USSCFY08-USSCFY09. Table 6 SELECTED SENTENCING FACTORS FOR OFFENDERS WHO WERE CONSIDERED FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION DUE TO APPLICATION OF RETROACTIVE CRACK COCAINE AMENDMENT All Cases Granted Denied1 % % % Weapon Weapon Specific Offense Characteristic Firearms Mandatory Minimum Applied 23.4 8.9 23.1 8.5 26.9 12.8 Safety Valve 10.5 11.0 5.9 Guideline Role Adjustments Aggravating Role (USSG §3B1.1) Mitigating Role (USSG §3B1.2) Obstruction Adjustment (USSG §3C1.1) 9.0 3.3 5.4 8.1 3.1 5.3 17.5 5.3 6.5 Sentence Relative to the Guideline Range Within Range Above Range Below Range 69.6 0.4 30.0 70.9 0.3 28.8 57.0 1.2 41.9 Criminal History Category I II III IV V VI 23.8 13.4 23.1 16.6 9.9 13.2 24.4 13.4 23.3 16.8 9.8 12.3 17.4 13.5 21.4 14.5 11.2 21.9 1 The 1,201 offenders represented in this column are those whom the Commission previously identified as eligible to seek a sentence reduction but whose petition for a reduction was denied by the court. Of the remaining 3,848 cases in which the court denied the request for a sentence reduction, 2,590 were excluded from this analysis because the offender was not previously identified as eligible to seek a sentence reduction for one or more reasons ( see 'Analysis of the Impact of the Crack Cocaine Amendment If Made Retroactive' (October 3, 2007) available at www.ussc.gov). Of the remaining 1,258 cases, 216 were excluded from this analysis because the offender had been identified as released or projected to be released prior to November 1, 2007 and so was excluded from the Commission's prior analysis of eligible offenders, 334 were excluded from this analysis because the offender was not sentenced for a drug offense, 573 were excluded from this analysis because crack cocaine was not involved in the offense, and 135 were excluded from this analysis because the reason for the court's decision cannot yet be determined. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary 2008-2009 Datafiles, USSCFY08-USSCFY09. Table 7 POSITION OF WITHIN RANGE SENTENCES FOR OFFENDERS GRANTED A SENTENCE REDUCTION DUE TO APPLICATION OF RETROACTIVE CRACK COCAINE AMENDMENT 1 ORIGINAL SENTENCE CURRENT SENTENCE N % N % TOTAL 4,947 100.0 4,947 100.0 Guideline Minimum 3,242 65.5 3,350 67.7 Lower Half of Range 830 16.8 625 12.6 Midpoint of Range 247 5.0 369 7.5 Upper Half of Range 309 6.2 289 5.8 Guideline Maximum 319 6.4 314 6.3 1 Of the 12,119 cases in which a motion for retroactive application of the crack cocaine amendment was granted, 6,439 received a sentence within the guideline range at both their original and current sentencing. Of these, 1,492 cases were excluded from this analysis due to one or more of the following reasons: the case is missing sentence length or guideline relevant statutory information from the new sentence (1,145), the case is missing sentence length or guideline relevant statutory information from the original sentence (281), the new sentence had a guideline minimum and maximum that were identical (140) or the original sentence had a guideline minimum and maximum that were identical (22). SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary 2008-2009 Datafiles, USSCFY08-USSCFY09. Table 8 DEGREE OF DECREASE IN SENTENCE DUE TO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF CRACK COCAINE AMENDMENT1 N Average Current Sentence in Months Average New Sentence in Months 10,755 137 114 24 17.0 D.C. CIRCUIT District of Columbia 103 103 128 128 109 109 19 19 14.5 14.5 FIRST CIRCUIT Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Puerto Rico Rhode Island 257 60 62 44 56 35 108 126 131 89 79 109 89 104 108 72 65 92 19 22 23 17 13 17 17.4 16.8 17.2 19.5 17.3 16.1 SECOND CIRCUIT Connecticut New York Eastern Northern Southern Western Vermont 469 118 113 102 95 84 18 18 16.0 17.4 57 76 106 96 16 107 134 130 99 97 89 113 110 85 78 18 21 20 14 18 17.1 15.5 15.0 14.8 18.6 THIRD CIRCUIT Delaware New Jersey Pennsylvania Eastern Middle Western Virgin Islands 458 12 81 123 136 110 102 110 92 21 26 18 16.5 18.8 16.3 157 141 67 0 143 112 113 -- 118 93 95 -- 25 19 18 -- 16.4 16.7 16.5 -- 2,497 118 142 131 118 110 25 22 17.0 16.4 138 78 118 586 135 148 147 144 112 121 124 118 23 26 23 26 16.4 17.4 15.1 17.6 618 486 157 153 129 129 28 24 17.3 15.5 173 182 80 125 66 102 15 23 18.5 18.7 CIRCUIT District TOTAL FOURTH CIRCUIT Maryland North Carolina Eastern Middle Western South Carolina Virginia Eastern Western West Virginia Northern Southern Average Decrease in Months From Current Sentence Average Percent Decrease From Current Sentence Table 8 (continued) DEGREE OF DECREASE IN SENTENCE DUE TO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF CRACK COCAINE AMENDMENT N Average Current Sentence in Months FIFTH CIRCUIT Louisiana Eastern Middle Western Mississippi Northern Southern Texas Eastern Northern Southern Western 1,700 137 114 24 17.1 176 24 136 133 78 145 115 67 120 18 11 25 13.6 14.8 17.1 87 160 99 122 81 101 18 21 17.8 17.4 333 220 204 360 126 170 152 138 102 140 126 115 24 30 26 23 18.8 17.9 16.2 17.3 SIXTH CIRCUIT Kentucky Eastern Western Michigan Eastern Western Ohio Northern Southern Tennessee Eastern Middle Western 892 116 97 19 16.3 62 62 104 118 86 100 18 18 16.5 15.0 91 45 129 86 106 76 24 10 17.3 13.2 208 170 101 124 84 104 17 20 17.7 16.0 119 22 113 119 128 130 102 110 108 17 18 22 14.4 14.6 17.1 SEVENTH CIRCUIT Illinois Central Northern Southern Indiana Northern Southern Wisconsin Eastern Western 861 138 114 24 17.5 124 150 215 160 125 150 132 105 123 28 20 27 17.1 16.3 17.7 197 27 128 176 106 146 22 30 17.1 16.1 84 64 124 122 101 96 23 25 18.7 20.7 1,106 127 105 22 16.7 80 51 141 101 116 85 25 16 17.9 16.7 88 76 122 133 161 149 110 135 123 24 27 26 17.6 16.3 17.1 392 98 199 0 0 113 120 130 --- 94 99 108 --- 18 21 23 --- 16.2 16.8 16.9 --- CIRCUIT District EIGHTH CIRCUIT Arkansas Eastern Western Iowa Northern Southern Minnesota Missouri Eastern Western Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota Average New Sentence in Months Average Decrease in Months From Current Sentence Average Percent Decrease From Current Sentence Table 8 (continued) DEGREE OF DECREASE IN SENTENCE DUE TO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF CRACK COCAINE AMENDMENT N Average Current Sentence in Months NINTH CIRCUIT Alaska Arizona California Central Eastern Northern Southern Guam Hawaii Idaho Montana Nevada Northern Mariana Islands Oregon Washington Eastern Western 297 26 2 136 144 -- 114 126 -- 22 18 -- 15.8 13.8 -- 34 74 27 8 0 18 2 4 39 0 13 158 132 101 150 -125 -102 148 -110 129 111 87 131 -104 -90 124 -93 29 22 14 19 -21 -12 24 -17 18.3 16.2 13.4 13.8 -16.3 -13.1 15.5 -16.9 5 45 117 141 107 113 10 28 9.2 17.2 TENTH CIRCUIT Colorado Kansas New Mexico Oklahoma Eastern Northern Western Utah Wyoming 349 55 165 33 142 151 124 130 117 123 103 107 25 28 21 23 17.2 17.6 16.6 17.4 12 25 45 13 1 145 194 183 118 -- 117 162 148 98 -- 27 32 35 20 -- 19.4 16.3 18.9 16.2 -- 1,766 162 132 30 17.7 71 70 229 166 135 188 137 115 153 30 20 35 17.4 14.1 18.1 584 169 222 159 227 132 128 184 110 31 43 22 18.7 18.2 16.7 218 54 149 127 174 158 102 142 135 25 32 23 19.3 17.9 14.1 CIRCUIT District ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Alabama Middle Northern Southern Florida Middle Northern Southern Georgia Middle Northern Southern Average New Sentence in Months 1 Average Decrease in Months From Current Sentence Average Percent Decrease From Current Sentence Of the 17,168 cases, 379 were excluded from this analysis because the case cannot be matched with an original case in the Commission's records and 4,914 were excluded from this analysis because the court denied the motion for a sentence reduction. Of the remaining 11,875 cases, 1,120 were excluded from this analysis because the offender was sentenced to time served and the resulting term of imprisonment could not be determined from the records received by the Commission. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary 2008-2009 Datafiles, USSCFY08-USSCFY09. Table 9 REASONS GIVEN BY SENTENCING COURTS FOR DENIAL OF MOTION 1 REASONS N % 606 509 97 10.8 9.1 1.7 3,620 1,341 1,244 502 177 174 121 55 6 0 65.0 24.1 22.3 9.0 3.2 3.1 2.2 1.0 0.1 0.0 Denied on the merits Offender has already benefitted from departure or variance 18 U.S.C § 3553(a) factors Protection of the public Post-sentencing or post-conviction conduct Offender subject to guideline reduction at original sentencing 859 404 150 131 106 68 15.5 7.3 2.7 2.4 1.9 1.2 No reason provided/Other reason Other No reason provided 484 260 224 8.6 4.6 4.0 Offense does not involve crack cocaine Case does not involve crack cocaine Sentence is determined by a non-drug guideline Offender not eligible under §1B1.10 Statutory mandatory minimum controls sentence Career Offender or Armed Career Criminal provisions control sentence Case involved more than 4.5 kg of crack cocaine Base offense level does not change (due to multiple drugs) Guideline range does not change Original sentence has been served Statutory maximum sentence is less than applicable guideline range Base offense level is 12 or lower Base offense level is 43 1 Courts may cite multiple reasons for denying a motion; consequently, the total number of reasons cited generally exceeds the total number of cases. In this table, 5,569 reasons were cited for the 5,049 cases. Of the 224 cases in which the court did not give a reason for the denial, 134 were previously identified as ineligible by the Commission for sentence reduction ( see 'Analysis of the Impact of the Crack Cocaine Amendment If Made Retroactive' (October 3, 2007) available at www.ussc.gov). Of those 134 cases, a statutory mandatory minimum controlled the sentence in 25 cases, in 17 cases the quantity of crack cocaine in the case exceeded 4.5 Kg, in 16 cases the sentence was determined by a non-drug guideline, in nine cases no change in the guideline range was found, in 27 cases crack cocaine was not involved, in 27 cases Career Offender or Armed Career Criminal provisions controlled the sentence, in six cases the offender was predicted to have been released, in three cases the Bureau of Prisons informed the Commission that the offender was no longer serving time for the instant offense, in one case the base offense level was 12 or lower, in two cases the base offense level was 43 and in one case there was no record on file with the Bureau of Prisons. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary 2008-2009 Datafiles, USSCFY08-USSCFY09.