U.S. v. CAFFEY, 4:07-CR-00250-02-JM (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20151216949
Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. No. 404) and Motion for Two Point Reduction (Doc. No. 405), based on Sentencing Guideline Amendment 782 are DENIED. Habeas Petition — Defendant's first habeas petition was denied on May 1, 2015. 1 As amended in April 1996 by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 2255 requires that all successive 2255 motions be certified by the appropria
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. No. 404) and Motion for Two Point Reduction (Doc. No. 405), based on Sentencing Guideline Amendment 782 are DENIED. Habeas Petition — Defendant's first habeas petition was denied on May 1, 2015. 1 As amended in April 1996 by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 2255 requires that all successive 2255 motions be certified by the appropriat..
More
ORDER
JAMES M. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 404) and Motion for Two Point Reduction (Doc. No. 405), based on Sentencing Guideline Amendment 782 are DENIED.
Habeas Petition — Defendant's first habeas petition was denied on May 1, 2015.1 As amended in April 1996 by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, § 2255 requires that all successive § 2255 motions be certified by the appropriate court of appeals before they are considered by the district courts.2 Because Defendant failed to obtain certification from the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, his petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Amendment 782 — Amendment 782 retroactively reduces most drug quantity base offense levels by two. However, only those defendants serving a sentence determined or affected by a range calculated using the drug quantity table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, are potentially eligible for a reduction. Since Defendant's base offense level was determined by his career offender status under § 4B1.1, not the drug quantity table, he is not eligible for a reduction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Doc. No. 399.
2. Boykin v. U.S., 242 F.3d 373 (8th Cir. 2000).
Source: Leagle
