Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. FLOWERS, 2:10-CR-2-D. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20150716a77 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jul. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , Chief District Judge . On July 7, 2010, after granting the government's motion under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) and considering the entire record, this court sentenced Renese Flowers ("Flowers") to 78 months' imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, a quantity of cocaine, and a quantity of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. See [D.E. 16, 17]. Flowers's total offense level was 29, her criminal history sco
More

ORDER

On July 7, 2010, after granting the government's motion under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and considering the entire record, this court sentenced Renese Flowers ("Flowers") to 78 months' imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, a quantity of cocaine, and a quantity of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. See [D.E. 16, 17]. Flowers's total offense level was 29, her criminal history score was II, and her advisory guideline range was 120 to 121 months.

On September 11, 2014, Flowers moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), and U.S.S.G. Amendment 782. See [D.E. 22]. Flowers's amended total offense level is 27, her criminal history category is II, and her advisory guideline range is 78 to 97 months.

The court recognizes its discretion to reduce Flowers's sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 546 F. App'x 225, 225-26 (4th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished); United States v. Perez, 536 F. App'x 321, 321 (4th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished); United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195-97 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010). Flowers engaged in an extensive conspiracy in Dare County and has a history of assaultive behavior. Having (again) reviewed the entire record, the court continues to believe that Flowers received the sentence that was sufficient but not greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See, e.g., Thomas, 546 F. App'x at 225-26; Perez, 536 F. App'x at 321.

In sum, Flower's motion for a sentence reduction [D.E. 22] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

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