U.S. v. DONNELL, 11-365 (01) (MJD). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20150929b46
Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's pro se motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). On June 21, 2012, the Defendant pled guilty to both counts of the Indictment; count one, possession with intent to distribute a mixture of substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana, and count two, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. On October 12, 2012, the Defendant was se
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's pro se motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). On June 21, 2012, the Defendant pled guilty to both counts of the Indictment; count one, possession with intent to distribute a mixture of substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana, and count two, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. On October 12, 2012, the Defendant was sen..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL J. DAVIS, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's pro se motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
On June 21, 2012, the Defendant pled guilty to both counts of the Indictment; count one, possession with intent to distribute a mixture of substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana, and count two, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. On October 12, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 60 months and 1 day; he was sentenced to one day as to count one and 60 months on count two, to be served consecutively.
The Defendant seeks a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines which lowered the drug quantity base offense levels applicable to certain drug offenses. The Defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction, however, as he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment that is below the amended guideline range for count one, which is 4 to 10 months.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Sentence Reduction [Doc. No. 105] is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
