Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Brown, CR 494-086. (2019)

Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia Number: infdco20190315c29 Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 14, 2019
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , Chief District Judge . Presently before the Court is Defendant's pro se motion for "Compassionate Release/Redution in [S]entence" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1). In 1994 Defendant was found guilty by a jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). On February 13, 1995, he was given an enhanced sentence of 312 months in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). He is currently housed at Beaumon
More

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Defendant's pro se motion for "Compassionate Release/Redution in [S]entence" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1).

In 1994 Defendant was found guilty by a jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). On February 13, 1995, he was given an enhanced sentence of 312 months in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). He is currently housed at Beaumont Low FCI in Beaumont, Texas. He is 68 years old. His projected release date is March 24, 2032.1

Upon review of Defendant's "motion," it appears that the intended recipient of this correspondence is the Warden of Beaumont Low FCI. The Court is listed only as a carbon-copy recipient. Thus, it does not appear that this Court has a pending motion that requires resolution.

Moreover, while § 3582(c)(1) now allows a defendant to move a federal district court for what is commonly referred to as "compassionate release," he may only do so "after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier." Defendant's "motion" does not show that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. In fact, his correspondence may be the first step he has taken to do just that. In any case, this Court cannot consider his request for relief based upon Defendant's January 30th filing.

Upon the foregoing. Defendant's § 3582(c)(1) motion is DENIED without prejudice to Defendant to file a new motion at the appropriate time.

ORDER ENTERED.

FootNotes


1. www.bop.gov/inmateloc
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