Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. NUNEZ, 8:05-cr-362-T-24EAJ. (2012)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20120417954 Visitors: 1
Filed: Apr. 16, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 16, 2012
Summary: ORDER SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, District Judge. This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Carlos Roberto Bonilla Nunez's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. No. 161). As explained below, the motion is denied. I. Background Petitioner was charged with, and pled guilty to, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (Count One) and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or mor
More

ORDER

SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Carlos Roberto Bonilla Nunez's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. No. 161). As explained below, the motion is denied.

I. Background

Petitioner was charged with, and pled guilty to, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (Count One) and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (Count Two). (Doc. No. 1, 49). Petitioner was sentenced on January 26, 2006 to 135 months of imprisonment. (Doc. No. 73). On March 26, 2008, Defendant submitted a motion for a sentence reduction, which this Court denied. (Doc. No. 159, 160). Thereafter, he filed the instant motion for reconsideration.

II. Discussion

In his motion for reconsideration, Defendant argues that his sentence should be reduced, because his co-defendants received lower sentences or received a sentence reduction. However, as explained below, Defendant has not shown that reconsideration is warranted, as he is simply rehashing arguments that he has already raised and the Court has already rejected.

Defendant was indicted along with three co-defendants. Defendant received a 135 month sentence. His co-defendant Hynds-Matute also received a 135 month sentence.1 (Doc. No. 86). His co-defendant Jimenez-Galan also received a 135 month sentence.2 (Doc. No. 106). While his co-defendant Gale-Bodden received a lower sentence of 121 months, he received such a sentence because the Government filed a 5k1.1 motion on his behalf.3 (Doc. No. 88).

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 161) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Hynds-Matute's sentence was later reduced to 108 months due to the Government filing a Rule 35 motion. (Doc. No. 143).
2. Jimenez-Galan's sentence was later reduced to 108 months due to the Government filing a Rule 35 motion. (Doc. No. 141).
3. Gale-Bodden's sentence was later reduced to 87 months due to the Government filing a Rule 35 motion. (Doc. No. 139).
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