U.S. v. MADRIGAL, 1:08-cr-00112-BLW. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Idaho
Number: infdco20151209b89
Visitors: 14
Filed: Dec. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 08, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER B. LYNN WINMILL , Chief District Judge . INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court is Defendant Rafael Madrigal's Motion for Sentence Relief Under the Federal Bureau of Prisons Non-Violent Offender Relief Act of 2003 H.R. 3575(a) (Dkt. 63). The Court will deny the motion. ANALYSIS In September 2008, Madrigal pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry, possession of an unregistered firearm, and forfeiture. He was sentenced to 130 months' imprisonment. The Ninth Circuit a
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER B. LYNN WINMILL , Chief District Judge . INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court is Defendant Rafael Madrigal's Motion for Sentence Relief Under the Federal Bureau of Prisons Non-Violent Offender Relief Act of 2003 H.R. 3575(a) (Dkt. 63). The Court will deny the motion. ANALYSIS In September 2008, Madrigal pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry, possession of an unregistered firearm, and forfeiture. He was sentenced to 130 months' imprisonment. The Ninth Circuit af..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Defendant Rafael Madrigal's Motion for Sentence Relief Under the Federal Bureau of Prisons Non-Violent Offender Relief Act of 2003 H.R. 3575(a) (Dkt. 63). The Court will deny the motion.
ANALYSIS
In September 2008, Madrigal pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry, possession of an unregistered firearm, and forfeiture. He was sentenced to 130 months' imprisonment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed his sentence.
Madrigal now asks the Court for a sentence reduction under legislation that supposedly revised 18 U.S.C. § 3624. Defendant asserts that § 3624 now provides that a prisoner should be released if he: (1) is 45 years or older; (2) has completed fifty percent of his sentence; (3) has not committed a violent crime; and (4) has not violated prison rules in any violent way. See Dkt. 63, at 1-2.
The problem is that Congress has not revised § 3624 as presented in Madrigal's motion. Rather, Madrigal is relying on a bill — The Federal Bureau of Prisons Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 2003, H.R. 3575, 108th Cong. (2003) — that was never enacted. Accordingly, the motion will be summarily denied.
ORDER
Defendant Rafael Madrigal's Motion for Sentence Relief Under the Federal Bureau of Prisons Non-Violent Offender Act of 2203 H.R. 3575(a) (Dkt. 63) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
