USA v. Holstick, 3:94CR114-WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20171214a78
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 13, 2017
Summary: ORDER W. HAROLD ALBRITTON , Senior District Judge . Upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion to Supplement Previously Submitted Motion for Relief Under 18 U.S.C. 3582 (Doc. #1654), the court finds the motion to be without legal merit, for the reasons stated in the Order (Doc. #1629) which denied the Motion for Retroactive Application of Amendment 782 (Doc. #1613) and Motion For A Sentence Reduction Purusant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (Doc. #1627). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that
Summary: ORDER W. HAROLD ALBRITTON , Senior District Judge . Upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion to Supplement Previously Submitted Motion for Relief Under 18 U.S.C. 3582 (Doc. #1654), the court finds the motion to be without legal merit, for the reasons stated in the Order (Doc. #1629) which denied the Motion for Retroactive Application of Amendment 782 (Doc. #1613) and Motion For A Sentence Reduction Purusant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (Doc. #1627). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that ..
More
ORDER
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON, Senior District Judge.
Upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion to Supplement Previously Submitted Motion for Relief Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (Doc. #1654), the court finds the motion to be without legal merit, for the reasons stated in the Order (Doc. #1629) which denied the Motion for Retroactive Application of Amendment 782 (Doc. #1613) and Motion For A Sentence Reduction Purusant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) (Doc. #1627). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Supplement is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
