United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
GREGORY F. VAN TATENHOVE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition
filed by the former United States Magistrate Judge Robert E.
Wier. [R. 345.] The Defendant, Madie Parriman, has filed a
pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [R. 337.]
Consistent with local practice, Judge Wier reviewed the
motion and ultimately recommends that the Court deny
Defendant Parriman's motion in its entirety.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), a petitioner has
fourteen days after service to register any objections to the
Recommended Disposition or else waive his rights to appeal.
In order to receive de novo review by this Court,
any objection to the recommended disposition must be
specific. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th
Cir. 1986). A specific objection must “explain and cite
specific portions of the report which [defendant] deem[s]
problematic.” Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981,
994 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). A general objection that fails to identify specific
factual or legal issues from the recommendation, however, is
not permitted, since it duplicates the Magistrate's
efforts and wastes judicial economy. Howard v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th
Parriman filed timely objections on December 12, 2016. [R.
347.] The Court acknowledges its duty to review Ms.
Parriman's filings under a more lenient standard than the
one applied to attorneys because Ms. Parriman is proceeding
pro se. See Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82,
84-85 (6th Cir. 1985). Under this more lenient standard, Ms.
Parriman's objections are sufficiently definite to
trigger the Court's obligation to conduct a de
novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c).
The Court has satisfied that duty, reviewing the entire
record, including the pleadings, the parties' arguments,
relevant case law and statutory authority, as well as
applicable procedural rules. For the following reasons, Ms.
Parriman's objections will be OVERRULED.
Wier's Recommended Disposition accurately sets forth the
factual and procedural background of the case. The Court
mentions only key facts to frame its discussion and analysis
and incorporates Judge Wier's discussion of the record in
this Order In May of 2013, Ms. Madie Parriman was indicted
for conspiracy to distribute oxycodone and possession with
intent to distribute oxycodone. [R. 28.] That December, Ms.
Parriman entered a guilty plea to the conspiracy charge, and
the Government dismissed the counts of possession with intent
to distribute. [R. 169; R. 171.] On February 11, 2016, she
was sentenced to 170 months of imprisonment, which she did
not appeal. [R. 332.]
Parriman filed a motion for § 2255 relief on October 31,
2016. [R. 337.] However, as Judge Wier notes, this motion is
actually a motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Ms. Parriman is, in fact,
requesting a reduction of her sentence pursuant to the United
States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 794, accordingly. She
claims the Court should have considered a minor role
reduction pursuant to Amendment 794 at sentencing. However,
Judge Wier determined that Amendment 794 became effective on
November 1, 2015, prior to Ms. Parriman's sentencing. [R.
345 at 4.] Because Amendment 794 were already in effect,
Judge Wier found that § 3582(c)(2) provides her no
794 pertains to the mitigating role reduction in U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.2. Ms. Parriman received adjustment for her role
in the offense at sentencing. [R. 340 at ¶37.] In her
objections, Ms. Parriman restates her request for a reduced
sentence, and elaborates on the circumstances she believes
should have been considered during her sentencing. [R. 347.]
A court may reduce a sentence of imprisonment if that
previous sentence was “based on a sentencing range that
has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o).” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added).
here is the amendment must be subsequent to the imposition of
the defendant's sentence. In Ms. Parriman's case,
Amendment 794 already applied to her sentencing guidelines.
She made no objections to the Presentence Investigation
Report (PSR), which did not include a reduction for a
mitigating role under § 3B1.2. Further, the PSR
indicates she stipulated responsibility for oxycodone that
corresponded to over 33, 000 kilograms of marijuana
equivalency. [R. 340 at ¶ 27.] Such an astonishing level
does not suggest Ms. Parriman was considered to have a
“mitigating role” in this offense. She may not
have been the most culpable defendant in the conspiracy, but
this does not necessarily mean she was “substantially
less culpable than the average participant” as
contemplated by § 3B1.2. See Application Note
3. Accordingly, these objections are overruled.
reviewing de novo the entire record, as well as the
relevant case law and statutory authority, the Court agrees
with Judge Wier's thorough analysis of Ms. Madie
Parriman's claims. Accordingly, and the Court being
otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
Defendant/Movant Madie Parriman's Motion to Vacate under
§ 2255 [R. 337] is
CONSTRUED as a Motion ...