Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. JIMENEZ-FLORES, 1:14-CR-13. (2015)

Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan Number: infdco20150224c27 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT HOLMES BELL, District Judge. Defendant Guillermo Jimenez-Flores has filed a motion for modification or reduction of sentence (ECF No. 68) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) on the basis of Amendment 782 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, made retroactive by the Sentencing Commission. Section 3582(c)(2) permits a court to reduce the term of imprisonment of a defendant who has been sentenced based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowe
More

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT HOLMES BELL, District Judge.

Defendant Guillermo Jimenez-Flores has filed a motion for modification or reduction of sentence (ECF No. 68) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) on the basis of Amendment 782 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, made retroactive by the Sentencing Commission.

Section 3582(c)(2) permits a court to reduce the term of imprisonment of a defendant who has been sentenced based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Amendment 782 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines reduced by two levels the offense levels assigned to the quantities that trigger the statutory mandatory minimum penalties in U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1 and 2D1.11. These modifications were made retroactive effective November 1, 2014. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.

However, because the court applied a variance at sentencing to reflect changes to USSC 2D1.1 Amendment 782, the Probation Office has now found Defendant ineligible for a further reduction in sentence under Guideline Amendment 782. Defense counsel has filed a response to the report of eligibility, ECF No. 83, and concurs that Defendant received a two-level reduction in anticipation of Amendment 782 taking effect and is therefore ineligible for additional relief.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for modification of sentence (ECF No. 68) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is DENIED.

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