Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Rivera-Vazquez, 13cr1307-CAB. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190528890 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 24, 2019
Latest Update: May 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 64]] CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO , District Judge . Before the Court is defendant Diego Rivera-Vazquez's second motion for reconsideration of the Court's order of April 9, 2019. [Doc. No. 64.] Defendant continues to incorrectly calculate his amended guideline at 28, based upon his incorrect assumption that the adjustment for mitigating role should continue to be a 4. However, as previously explained, when the base offense level is a 36, th
More

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 64]]

Before the Court is defendant Diego Rivera-Vazquez's second motion for reconsideration of the Court's order of April 9, 2019. [Doc. No. 64.] Defendant continues to incorrectly calculate his amended guideline at 28, based upon his incorrect assumption that the adjustment for mitigating role should continue to be a 4. However, as previously explained, when the base offense level is a 36, then the mitigating role reduction reduces the base offence level by three points, NOT four points. USSG§2D1.1(a)(5). Therefore, with a recalculated base offense level of 36, the mitigating role reduction reduces the base offence level by three points to a 33. The base offense level of 33 is then reduced two points for the corresponding minor role adjustment to 31. Finally, after adjusting two points for acceptance of responsibility, the defendant's amended adjusted base offense level is a 29. The Court's April 9, 2019 order was correct, and defendant's second motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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