U.S. v. BAKER, 1:05-cr-00223-MR-1. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20140804a99
Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2014
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's pro se motion for a reduction of sentence [Doc. 57], which is based on the amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Sentencing Commission on April 30, 2014, which would revise the guidelines applicable to drug trafficking offenses by lowering the base offense levels in the Drug Quantity Table in Section 2D1.1. Congress has until November 1, 2014 to disapprove the amendment.
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's pro se motion for a reduction of sentence [Doc. 57], which is based on the amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Sentencing Commission on April 30, 2014, which would revise the guidelines applicable to drug trafficking offenses by lowering the base offense levels in the Drug Quantity Table in Section 2D1.1. Congress has until November 1, 2014 to disapprove the amendment. ..
More
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's pro se motion for a reduction of sentence [Doc. 57], which is based on the amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Sentencing Commission on April 30, 2014, which would revise the guidelines applicable to drug trafficking offenses by lowering the base offense levels in the Drug Quantity Table in Section 2D1.1.
Congress has until November 1, 2014 to disapprove the amendment. See U.S. Sentencing Comm'n News Release, U.S. Sentencing Commission Unanimously Votes to Allow Delayed Retroactive Reduction in Drug Trafficking Sentences (July 18, 2014). If Congress decides to let the guideline reductions stand, then federal courts may begin considering petitions for sentence reductions. Until then, however, any request for relief under the amendment is premature and must be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's pro se motion for a reduction of sentence [Doc. 57] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
