U.S. v. BROWN, 1:08-cr-106. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20141212895
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JANET T. NEFF, District Judge. Defendant Ronnie Lee Brown has filed a motion for modification or reduction of sentence (Dkt 44) 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 Senten
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JANET T. NEFF, District Judge. Defendant Ronnie Lee Brown has filed a motion for modification or reduction of sentence (Dkt 44) 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 Sentenc..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JANET T. NEFF, District Judge.
Defendant Ronnie Lee Brown has filed a motion for modification or reduction of sentence (Dkt 44) 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, the defendant is ineligible for consideration of modification of sentence (Dkt 47), because the guideline range was determined based on the defendant's status as a Career Offender. Counsel for defendant has filed a response (Dkt 50) to the report of eligibility and preserves this issue for future consideration should the law change.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for modification of sentence (Dkt 44) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
