U.S. v. Serrano, 1:11-CR-00354 LJO. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180403789
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (ECF No. 735) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , District Judge . Defendant Jesus Ramon Serrano ("Defendant") previously filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) ("Section 3582"), seeking a reduction in his sentence on the basis of Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which revises the Drug Quantity Table in USSG 2D1.1 and reduces by two levels the offense level appli
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (ECF No. 735) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , District Judge . Defendant Jesus Ramon Serrano ("Defendant") previously filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) ("Section 3582"), seeking a reduction in his sentence on the basis of Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which revises the Drug Quantity Table in USSG 2D1.1 and reduces by two levels the offense level applic..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(ECF No. 735)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
Defendant Jesus Ramon Serrano ("Defendant") previously filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) ("Section 3582"), seeking a reduction in his sentence on the basis of Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which revises the Drug Quantity Table in USSG § 2D1.1 and reduces by two levels the offense level applicable to many drug trafficking offenses. ECF No. 563. The Government opposed. ECF No. 594. In a June 19, 2015 Order, this Court denied Defendant's first Section 3582 motion because Defendant is not eligible to benefit from Amendment 782. ECF No. 597.
On February 6, 2017, the Court received a second pro se motion from Defendant seeking a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). ECF No. 735. The Government opposed. ECF No. 736. The case was referred to the Federal Defender's Office, ECF No. 738, which declined to supplement Defendant's motion and withdrew as counsel, ECF No. 739. Defendant's motion raises no new arguments that affect the Court's original analysis. Because Defendant has failed to show that he is entitled to relief under Section 3582, his second Section 3582 motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
