Filed: May 09, 2016
Latest Update: May 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER STACI M. YANDLE , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Daniel Wayne Stark, Sr.'s Motion to Modify Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (Doc. 399). The Government has filed a response (Doc. 401) to which Defendant has filed a reply (Doc. 402). The Court having been fully advised in the premises finds the Defendant's Motion should be DISMISSED. On September 23, 2005, Defendant was convicted of numerous criminal charges. On March 31, 2006, Defendant was
Summary: ORDER STACI M. YANDLE , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Daniel Wayne Stark, Sr.'s Motion to Modify Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (Doc. 399). The Government has filed a response (Doc. 401) to which Defendant has filed a reply (Doc. 402). The Court having been fully advised in the premises finds the Defendant's Motion should be DISMISSED. On September 23, 2005, Defendant was convicted of numerous criminal charges. On March 31, 2006, Defendant was s..
More
ORDER
STACI M. YANDLE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Daniel Wayne Stark, Sr.'s Motion to Modify Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (Doc. 399). The Government has filed a response (Doc. 401) to which Defendant has filed a reply (Doc. 402). The Court having been fully advised in the premises finds the Defendant's Motion should be DISMISSED.
On September 23, 2005, Defendant was convicted of numerous criminal charges. On March 31, 2006, Defendant was sentenced to 292 months' imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. See United State v. Stark, 507 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 2007).
Defendant filed his instant motion on December 22, 2015, requesting the Court to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) from 292 to 227 months' imprisonment. Defendant argues that the Court should modify his sentence due to changes to §2B.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) and asserts that those changes should apply retroactively. He attaches what appears to be Amendment 791 of the U.S.S.G.
A court may not modify a prison sentence after imposing it except "[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the sentencing commission ... the court may reduce the term of imprisonment ... if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). U.S.S.G. §1B1.10 provides the list of U.S.S.G. amendments that require retroactive application. If an amendment to the U.S.S.G. is not listed in §1B1.10, a retroactive sentence reduction is not permitted. U.S.S.G. 1B.10(a)(2)(A). Amendment 791 does not appear on the comprehensive list found in section 1B1.10. Therefore, Amendment 791 does not apply retroactively. Additionally, Amendment 791 was enacted to account for inflation and thus does not provide for any type of sentence reduction.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
