U.S. v. LITTLEJOHN, 07-cr-00183-REB. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20150629710
Visitors: 22
Filed: Jun. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . The matter is before me on the Motion Pursuant to 18 USC 3582(c)(2) Fair Sentencing Act 2010 18 to 1 Ratio, Reduction of Mandatory Minimums [#1095] 1 filed July 19, 2012. After careful review of the motion 2 and the record, I conclude that the motion should be denied. I find and conclude specifically as follows: (1) the defendant was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum applicable to both counts of conviction; and (2) the defendant
Summary: ORDER ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . The matter is before me on the Motion Pursuant to 18 USC 3582(c)(2) Fair Sentencing Act 2010 18 to 1 Ratio, Reduction of Mandatory Minimums [#1095] 1 filed July 19, 2012. After careful review of the motion 2 and the record, I conclude that the motion should be denied. I find and conclude specifically as follows: (1) the defendant was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum applicable to both counts of conviction; and (2) the defendant w..
More
ORDER
ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.
The matter is before me on the Motion Pursuant to 18 USC § 3582(c)(2) Fair Sentencing Act 2010 18 to 1 Ratio, Reduction of Mandatory Minimums [#1095]1 filed July 19, 2012. After careful review of the motion2 and the record, I conclude that the motion should be denied. I find and conclude specifically as follows: (1) the defendant was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum applicable to both counts of conviction; and (2) the defendant was sentenced before the effective date of the act. Thus, the motion must be denied. See United States v. Lucero, 713 F.3d 1024, 1027 (10th Cir. 2013).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion Pursuant to 18 USC § 3582(c)(2) Fair Sentencing Act 2010 18 to 1 Ratio, Reduction of Mandatory Minimums is denied.
FootNotes
1. "[#1095]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
2. I considered also the other relevant papers, including [#1098], [#1099], [#1100], and [#1136].
Source: Leagle
