Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. HERNANDEZ, 1:10cr144-MHT (WO). (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama Number: infdco20151110j16 Visitors: 10
Filed: Nov. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 09, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON , District Judge . Amendment 782 to the 2014 edition of the Sentencing Guidelines revised the guidelines applicable to drug-trafficking offenses. Following the United States Sentencing Commission's decision to give retroactive effect to the amendment, this court established a Retroactivity Screening Panel to determine whether a defendant might be eligible for a reduction of sentence. In its recommendation entered October 28, 2015, the Panel stated that "
More

OPINION AND ORDER

Amendment 782 to the 2014 edition of the Sentencing Guidelines revised the guidelines applicable to drug-trafficking offenses. Following the United States Sentencing Commission's decision to give retroactive effect to the amendment, this court established a Retroactivity Screening Panel to determine whether a defendant might be eligible for a reduction of sentence.

In its recommendation entered October 28, 2015, the Panel stated that "no change is recommended because defendant did not receive a guideline sentence." However, this court disagrees. The defendant's previous sentence of 86 months was based on the then-applicable guideline range, but reflected a downward variance. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2) cmt. no. 3 and United States v. Withrow, 508 F. App'x 859, 863 (11th Cir. 2013), this court has the authority to reduce a sentence that, for reasons other than the defendant's substantial assistance, fell below the original guideline range to a sentence within but not below the amended guideline range.

Both the government and the defendant agree that a six-month reduction to 80 months, which falls within the amended guideline range, is appropriate in this case.

Although the Panel made no recommendation as to whether any of the public-safety and post-sentencing conduct factors outlined in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. no. 1 might warrant the court's consideration in determining whether a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is appropriate, all parties have concluded and the court accordingly finds that no such issues exist in this case.

* * *

Upon consideration of the recommendation of the Retroactivity Screening Panel, and after an independent and de novo review of the record, it is ORDERED, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), that defendant Hernandez's previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in the last judgment issued) of 86 months is reduced to 80 months.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer