United States v. Odman, 4:96-cr-00053-MR-1. (2020)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20200226b16
Visitors: 22
Filed: Feb. 25, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2020
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion to Alter and/or Amend Judgment Per Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)," which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 786]. The Defendant moves for reconsideration of the Order denying his Motion for Reduction of Sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. [Doc. 786]. Upon review of the Defendant's Motion, the Court finds no basis in law or fact to reconsider its prior Order. As noted
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion to Alter and/or Amend Judgment Per Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)," which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 786]. The Defendant moves for reconsideration of the Order denying his Motion for Reduction of Sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. [Doc. 786]. Upon review of the Defendant's Motion, the Court finds no basis in law or fact to reconsider its prior Order. As noted ..
More
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion to Alter and/or Amend Judgment Per Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)," which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 786].
The Defendant moves for reconsideration of the Order denying his Motion for Reduction of Sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. [Doc. 786]. Upon review of the Defendant's Motion, the Court finds no basis in law or fact to reconsider its prior Order. As noted in the Supplemental PSR [Doc. 779], a jury found that the offense involved at least five kilograms of cocaine and at least 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base. Given the drug quantities involved, the Defendant's statutory penalties are not impacted by the First Step Act.
Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's "Motion to Alter and/or Amend Judgment Per Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)," which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 786], is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
