Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. GIVENS, 3:05-cr-132-J-20MCR. (2012)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20120614706 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2012
Summary: ORDER HARVEY E. SCHLESINGER, District Judge. This cause is before this Court on Defendant's "Motion for Reduction of Sentence Under the Retroactivity of Amendment 750 (Part A and C)" (Dkt. 76), and "Motion for Appoinment of Counsel" (Dkt. 77). Pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the United States Sentencing Commission promulgated an emergency, temporary sentencing guideline amendment lowering the base offense levels for cocaine base (crack cocaine) offenses for eligible defendants s
More

ORDER

HARVEY E. SCHLESINGER, District Judge.

This cause is before this Court on Defendant's "Motion for Reduction of Sentence Under the Retroactivity of Amendment 750 (Part A and C)" (Dkt. 76), and "Motion for Appoinment of Counsel" (Dkt. 77).

Pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the United States Sentencing Commission promulgated an emergency, temporary sentencing guideline amendment lowering the base offense levels for cocaine base (crack cocaine) offenses for eligible defendants sentenced on or after November 1, 2010. A permanent amendment was subsequently promulgated, Amendment 750. That permanent amendment, which became effective November 1, 2011, assigns the same quantities of crack cocaine to the same base offense levels as did the emergency, temporary amendment. On June 30, 2011, the Sentencing Commission decided that the reduced base offense levels assigned to the quantities of crack cocaine, listed in the Drug Quantity Table at U.S.S.G. § 201.1 (c), should be applied retroactively to defendants sentenced before November 1, 2010.

Defendant alleges that he is eligible for sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 and its predecessor Amendment 706. However, as this Court noted in denying Defendant's former request for similar relief, Defendant was sentenced as a career offender so he is ineligible for a reduction in his previously imposed sentence (Dkt. 73).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant's "Motion for Reduction of Sentence Under the Retroactivity of Amendment 750 (Part A and C)" (Dkt. 76) is DENIED; and

2. Defendant's "Motion for Appoinment of Counsel" (Dkt. 77) is DENIED.

DONE AND 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