U.S. v. APPLEWHITE, 6:08-cr-60037-MC-1. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20150601676
Filed: May 27, 2015
Latest Update: May 27, 2015
Summary: OPINION and ORDER MICHAEL J. McSHANE , District Judge . Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence (ECF No. 49) is DENIED for the following reasons. On March 30, 2015, Defendant Willie David Applewhite filed this Motion to Reduce Sentence, seeking a two-level reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) Amendment 782. (ECF No. 49). On April 8, 2015, Assistant United States Attorney Jeffery Sweet filed the government's Response to the m
Summary: OPINION and ORDER MICHAEL J. McSHANE , District Judge . Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence (ECF No. 49) is DENIED for the following reasons. On March 30, 2015, Defendant Willie David Applewhite filed this Motion to Reduce Sentence, seeking a two-level reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) Amendment 782. (ECF No. 49). On April 8, 2015, Assistant United States Attorney Jeffery Sweet filed the government's Response to the mo..
More
OPINION and ORDER
MICHAEL J. McSHANE, District Judge.
Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence (ECF No. 49) is DENIED for the following reasons.
On March 30, 2015, Defendant Willie David Applewhite filed this Motion to Reduce Sentence, seeking a two-level reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) Amendment 782. (ECF No. 49). On April 8, 2015, Assistant United States Attorney Jeffery Sweet filed the government's Response to the motion, stating that Mr. Applewhite is not eligible for the reduction because he was convicted of bank robbery and his guideline range was based on § 2B3.1, which was not changed by Amendment 782. (ECF No. 52 at pp.2-3). On May 11, 2015, Assistant Federal Public Defender Bryan Lessley filed the Defendant's Reply brief, stating that "Mr. Applewhite does not contest the government's arguments." (ECF No. 56 at p.1). Because § 2B3.1 was not impacted by Amendment 782, the Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence (ECF No. 49) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
