U.S. v. Knight, 1:15 CR 222. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190514654
Visitors: 8
Filed: May 07, 2019
Latest Update: May 07, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DONALD C. NUGENT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant, Delores L. Knight's pro se Motion For Reduction of Sentence and Application of Amendment 749 Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(2). (ECF # 226). Ms. Knight is not entitled to any relief under this statute. Section 3582(c) prohibits a Court from modifying a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except under certain specified circumstances. None of these circumstances
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DONALD C. NUGENT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant, Delores L. Knight's pro se Motion For Reduction of Sentence and Application of Amendment 749 Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(2). (ECF # 226). Ms. Knight is not entitled to any relief under this statute. Section 3582(c) prohibits a Court from modifying a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except under certain specified circumstances. None of these circumstances a..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DONALD C. NUGENT, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant, Delores L. Knight's pro se Motion For Reduction of Sentence and Application of Amendment 749 Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(2). (ECF # 226). Ms. Knight is not entitled to any relief under this statute. Section 3582(c) prohibits a Court from modifying a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except under certain specified circumstances. None of these circumstances apply in Ms. Knight's case. She cites §3582(c)(2) and "Amendment 749" as grounds for relief, but that section only permits a modification when a defendant "has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission...." No such change to her sentencing range has occurred. Amendment 749 to the Guidelines was adopted prior to Ms. Knight's sentencing and not subsequently. Any applicable provisions of that Amendment would have been taken into consideration at the time of her sentencing.
As Ms. Knight has not identified any basis upon which a reduction in sentence may be granted, her Motion is DENIED. (ECF #226). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
