U.S. v. SMITH, 06-CR-30070-DRH-1. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20140703c82
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2014
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge. This comes before the Court for purposes of case management. Defendant Walter C. Smith, III, inquires as to whether he is eligible for a sentence reduction under the "new crack laws." Defendant asks for appointment of counsel in this regard. The Court first notes that it will not appoint counsel to represent defendant in his intention to file a "crack motion" at this time. The Seventh Circuit has alluded that this Court does not have the authority, "to
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge. This comes before the Court for purposes of case management. Defendant Walter C. Smith, III, inquires as to whether he is eligible for a sentence reduction under the "new crack laws." Defendant asks for appointment of counsel in this regard. The Court first notes that it will not appoint counsel to represent defendant in his intention to file a "crack motion" at this time. The Seventh Circuit has alluded that this Court does not have the authority, "to ..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
This comes before the Court for purposes of case management. Defendant Walter C. Smith, III, inquires as to whether he is eligible for a sentence reduction under the "new crack laws." Defendant asks for appointment of counsel in this regard.
The Court first notes that it will not appoint counsel to represent defendant in his intention to file a "crack motion" at this time. The Seventh Circuit has alluded that this Court does not have the authority, "to appoint counsel at public expense to prosecute a motion in this district court, or an appeal, under § 3582(c)(2)." United States v. Foster, 706 F.3d 887, 887-88 (7th Cir. 2013). And thus, defendant's request for appointment of counsel is denied.
However, in light of certain changes to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines that may take effect retroactively November 1, 2014, the Court shall leave defendant's motion for reduction of sentence pending at this time. The Court shall review and re-evaluate the substantive merits of defendant's request as soon as practicable after November 1, 2014.
Source: Leagle
