United States District Court, D. Montana, Butte Division
CHARLES C. LOVELL, SR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Charles Bernard Parke requests that this Court reduce his
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and Amendment
782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. (Doc. 112).
Defendant also filed three requests for a status report.
(Docs. 114, 118, and 121). Additionally, Defendant asks this
Court to set aside the charges in this case on the grounds
that his arrest was illegal. (Docs. 115 and 120).
initially appeared before Magistrate Judge Lynch in Missoula,
Montana, on November 13, 2008, to respond to a complaint
submitted by a Special Agent for the United States Department
of Homeland Security charging Defendant with possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine. An indictment charging
Defendant with one count of possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, one count of possession with
intent to distribute marijuana, and one count of maintaining
drug-related premises was filed on December 3, 2008. (Doc.
11). A superseding indictment charging the same three counts
was filed on February 23, 2009.(Doc. 34).
April 15, 2009, Defendant appeared before the Court and
entered a guilty plea to Count I of the Superseding
Indictment, charging him in Count I with Possession With
Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine (50 grams or more of a
mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
The Superseding Indictment informed Defendant that this
offense carries a penalty of a mandatory minimum five years
to 40 years imprisonment, and warned Defendant that the
penalty could be enhanced for prior drug-related felony
convictions. (Doc. 34). The mandatory minimum was increased
to ten years and the maximum penalty to life based on the
government's filing of an Information Pursuant to 21
U.S.C. § 851. (Doc. 18).
appeared for sentencing on October 15, 2009. There were no
objections to the Presentence Report, which calculated his
offense level at 34, based on his designation as a career
offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). His criminal
history category was VI, resulting in a guideline range of
262 to 327 months. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment
of 262 months, followed by ninety-six (96) months of
supervised release. (Doc. 54).
submitted a pro se notice of appeal, which was filed
on October 20, 2009. (Doc. 58). The Ninth Circuit affirmed
his sentence on October 27, 2010. (Doc. 70). Less than a year
later, in September of 2011, Defendant submitted a document
captioned "Rule 33 and Rule 60(b) Motion," which
the Clerk characterized as a Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. (Doc. 73). The Court denied the motion on March
22, 2012. (Doc. 77). Defendant attempted to re-litigate the
same issues in subsequent filings, and the Court denied his
subsequent motions. (Docs. 90, 98, 105, and 111). The Ninth
Circuit denied his request for a certificate of appealability
(Doc. 106) and the United States Supreme Court denied his
petition for a writ of certiorari. (Doc. 108).
claims that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c) because his sentence was imposed based
on a guideline that was retroactively reduced by two offense
levels by Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines. He also asks the Court to consider his attempts
while in prison to better himself by learning various skills.
also seeks to have his charges in this case set aside based
on his allegedly illegal arrest by state officials. Defendant
has unsuccessfully raised this argument in the past, but
claims that a recent decision by the Montana Supreme Court
conclusively establishes the illegality of his
is not entitled to a reduction in sentence based on Amendment
782 because he was sentenced as a career offender. The Ninth
Circuit has determined that "retroactive amendments
regarding sentences under the drug guidelines do not affect
individuals who were sentenced as career offenders."
United States v. Charles, 749 F.3d 767, 770
(9th Cir. 2014). The Court need not proceed to the
next step and consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors because Defendant is not eligible for a
reduction in sentence.
Offer of Proof in support of Defendant's guilty plea, the
United States explained that Defendant was arrested by local
law enforcement officers on October 23, 2008, based on an
"outstanding arrest warrant for a violation of his state
probation." (Doc. 40 at 2, ¶ 1). According to the
Montana Supreme Court, that arrest warrant was quashed on
September 11, 2008. (Doc. 120 at 6).
for the United States summarized the government's Offer
of Proof during Defendant's April 15, 2009, change of
plea hearing and Defendant agreed with the summary. Defendant
then entered a knowing and ...