United States District Court, D. Montana, Billings Division
Morris United States District Court Judge
Alan “Tone” Hanson moved the Court to reconsider
its March 16, 2015, Order that denied Hanson's Motion for
Sentence Reduction on January 28, 2019. (Doc. 56.) The Court
recharacterized Hanson's motion as an 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c) motion on February 11, 2019. (Doc. 57 at 1.)
Court determined that Hanson presented a plausible claim for
reduced sentence under § 3582(c) in light of the United
States Supreme Court's recent decisions in both
Hughes v. United States, __ U.S. __, 138 S.Ct. 1765
(2018), and Koons v. United States, __ U.S. __, 138
S.Ct. 1783 (2018). Id. at 9. The Court requested the
Government to order immediately the transcripts from
Hanson's change of plea hearing and sentencing hearing.
Id. at 9. The Court likewise required the Government
to respond to Hanson's motion within 14 days of filing
the requested transcripts. Id. The Government timely
responded on March 7, 2019. (Doc. 63.) The Court will not
recite the facts here as it presented previously the facts
pertinent to the instant motion in its February 11, 2019,
Order. See (Doc. 57 at 1-4.)
Government concedes that Hanson proves “eligible for a
sentence reduction” as Hanson's sentence proved
“based on” the Guideline sentence range in light
of the Supreme Court's holding in Hughes. (Doc.
63 at 1.) Section 3582(c) “establishes a two-step
inquiry” whether a defendant proves entitled to a
sentence reduction. Dillon v. United States, 560
U.S. 817, 826 (2010).
Court “must first determine that a reduction is
consistent with § 1B1.10 before it may consider whether
the authorized reduction is warranted, either in whole or in
part, according to the factors set forth in §
3553(a).” Id. Section 1B1.10 provides, in
pertinent part, that “[i]n determining whether, and to
what extent a reduction in the defendant's term of
imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this
policy statement is warranted, the court shall determine the
amended guideline range that would have been applicable to
the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines listed in
subsection (d) had been in effect at the time the defendant
was sentenced.” USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1). The Court
must “substitute only the amendments listed in
subsection (d) for the corresponding guideline provisions
that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall
leave all other guideline application decisions
Government concedes that Hanson satisfies the first prong of
the Dillon test. (Doc. 63 at 8.) As a result, the
Government acknowledges that the Court possesses the
discretion to amend Hanson's guideline range.
Id. at 8-9. Hanson's recalculated base offense
level is 24. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(8). The Court reduces
Hanson's base offense level by three in light of the
Court's recognition of his acceptance of responsibility
and timely notification of plea. See (Doc. 46 at 8.)
Hanson stands at a total offense level of 21 with a criminal
history category of III. Hanson's recalculated advisory
range equals 46 to 57 months on Count I. Hanson's
sentence of 60 months on Count II remains consecutive. The
Government, and Hanson, agree that Hanson's recalculated
guideline range on Count I equals 46 to 57 months. (Docs. 63
at 9, 71 at 6.)
Government nonetheless advocates that § 3553(a)
sentencing factors do not justifying the Court reducing
Hanson's sentencing. Id. at 1-2, 9-10. The
Government contends that Hanson's 150 month sentence
remains warranted as Hanson possess a lengthy criminal
history, that Hanson's instant offense involved the
possession of a firearm while distributing cocaine, and that
Hanson has benefited from the underlying plea agreement.
Id. at 9. Hanson faced a maximum penalty of 30 years
imprisonment, pursuant to the Government's 851 motion,
before he entered into the Type-C plea agreement with the
Government. Id. at 9-10. The Government ultimately
contends that the sentence that the Court originally imposed
against Hanson remains “necessary to protect the public
from future crimes” and necessary to deter Hanson from
engaging in similar conduct in the future. Id. at 9.
contends that he has “worked hard towards
rehabilitating himself and readying himself for life outside
the prison walls.” (Doc. 71 at 7.) Hanson acknowledges
the seriousness of his criminal history, including the
seriousness of the instant offenses of conviction.
Id. Hanson further highlights that he previously
remained sober and employed between 2008 and 2011.
Id. at 8. Hanson likewise argues that he “has
completed every single drug treatment program he was eligible
for, and has participated in obtaining electrician, plumbing,
and HVAC certification hours.” Id. at 8.
currently is 41 years old. Id. at 7. He has served
more than eight years of his 150 month sentence. Id.
Hanson has made the most of his substantial time in custody.
He has completed drug treatment programs and participated in
vocational training programs that will better his life upon
his release from the Bureau of Prisons.
reduction in Hanson's sentence will protect the
community, will reflect the seriousness of the offense, will
provide just punishment under the law, and will not be
disparate to sentences of defendants convicted of similar
offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court will grant
Hanson's § 3582(c) Motion for Reduced Sentence.
United States Probation Office will prepare and file an
Addendum to the Presentence Report in this matter. The
parties shall file any objections they may have to the
Addendum to the Presentence Report within 14 days of its