ORDER

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

Before the court is defendant's pro se motion for a sentence reduction under "recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines." (Docket No. 292.) The motion requests a reduction and contends that the drug quantities at issue "were [not] accurately calculated," though the motion provides no reasoning or evidence in support of the request.

Pursuant to General Order 546, the Office of the Federal Defendant was appointed to represent defendant on any motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782. (Docket No. 296.) However, on December 20, 2019, the Office of the Federal Defender stated that it would not file a supplement to defendant's pro se motion. (Docket No. 299.)

The Office of the Federal Defender, as appointed counsel, is obligated to vigorously advocate the defendant's cause. See, e.g., Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (defense counsel's "function is to assist the defendant" and has an "overarching duty to advocate the defendant's cause"). In light of this obligation, the court construes the Office's statement that it would not file a supplement to the pro se motion as a recognition that there is no colorable argument that may be made in support of a sentence reduction. Further, as discussed above, defendant's motion provides no argument or evidence in support of the requested relief. Because both defendant, acting pro se, and his appointed counsel provide no reason why defendant is entitled to any relief, defendant's motion (Docket No. 292) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.