USA v. HUNT, 3:11-CR-00108-RJC. (2016)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20160927f06
Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 26, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2016
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court upon motion of the defendant pro se for a reduction of sentence based on Amendment 794 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) clarifying 3B1.2. (Doc. No. 25). The defendant's Judgment was entered on January 31, 2012, (Doc. No. 18), which he did not appeal. He claims that he is entitled to re-calculation of the offense level based on amendments to the commentary relating to the mitigating role adjust
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court upon motion of the defendant pro se for a reduction of sentence based on Amendment 794 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) clarifying 3B1.2. (Doc. No. 25). The defendant's Judgment was entered on January 31, 2012, (Doc. No. 18), which he did not appeal. He claims that he is entitled to re-calculation of the offense level based on amendments to the commentary relating to the mitigating role adjustm..
More
ORDER
ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon motion of the defendant pro se for a reduction of sentence based on Amendment 794 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) clarifying §3B1.2. (Doc. No. 25).
The defendant's Judgment was entered on January 31, 2012, (Doc. No. 18), which he did not appeal. He claims that he is entitled to re-calculation of the offense level based on amendments to the commentary relating to the mitigating role adjustment that became effective November 1, 2015. (Doc. No. 25: Motion at 1). Although Amendment 794 has been found to be retroactive to cases on direct appeal, United States v. Quntero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016), the defendant has not provided any authority establishing the amendment is retroactive to his final judgment. Additionally, USSG §1B1.10(c) (2015), which lists amendments to be applied retroactively, does not include Amendment 794. Accordingly, the defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the defendant's motion, (Doc. No. 25), is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
