U.S. v. HERRERA, CR 12-00679 DDP (4). (2016)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20160511782
Visitors: 18
Filed: May 09, 2016
Latest Update: May 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER RE MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE RE NON VIOLENT DRUG OFFENSE. MOTION SEEKING MODIFICATION/REDUCTION [DOCKET NUMBER 226, 227] DEAN D. PREGERSON , District Judge . Defendant has moved pro se pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines to have his sentence reduced. Defendant's motion fails because he received a downward departure or variance that resulted in a sentence at or below the low end of his post-Amendment 782 Guidelines range. See
Summary: ORDER RE MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE RE NON VIOLENT DRUG OFFENSE. MOTION SEEKING MODIFICATION/REDUCTION [DOCKET NUMBER 226, 227] DEAN D. PREGERSON , District Judge . Defendant has moved pro se pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines to have his sentence reduced. Defendant's motion fails because he received a downward departure or variance that resulted in a sentence at or below the low end of his post-Amendment 782 Guidelines range. See U..
More
ORDER RE MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE RE NON VIOLENT DRUG OFFENSE. MOTION SEEKING MODIFICATION/REDUCTION [DOCKET NUMBER 226, 227]
DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.
Defendant has moved pro se pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines to have his sentence reduced. Defendant's motion fails because he received a downward departure or variance that resulted in a sentence at or below the low end of his post-Amendment 782 Guidelines range. See United States v. Davis, 739 F.3d 1222, 1224-26 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that USSG § 1B1.10(b) "prohibits a court from reducing a defendant's sentence to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guidelines range, except in the case of a defendant who originally received a below-guidelines sentence based on substantial assistance to the government," and rejecting various legal challenges to the prohibition); see also United States v. Tercero, 734 F.3d 979, 981-84 (9th Cir. 2013) (similar). Accordingly, Defendant's motions are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
