U.S. v. BLYTHE, 92-00170-CB (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20150909890
Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 08, 2015
Summary: ORDER CHARLES R. BUTLER, Jr. , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the Court on defendant Rodney Blythe's motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on a retroactive amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. After determining that application of the amended guideline would, in fact, lower Defendant's guideline range, the Court entered an order expressing its intention to reduce Blythe's sentence to 324 months (the low end of the amended
Summary: ORDER CHARLES R. BUTLER, Jr. , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the Court on defendant Rodney Blythe's motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on a retroactive amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. After determining that application of the amended guideline would, in fact, lower Defendant's guideline range, the Court entered an order expressing its intention to reduce Blythe's sentence to 324 months (the low end of the amended r..
More
ORDER
CHARLES R. BUTLER, Jr., Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on defendant Rodney Blythe's motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on a retroactive amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. After determining that application of the amended guideline would, in fact, lower Defendant's guideline range, the Court entered an order expressing its intention to reduce Blythe's sentence to 324 months (the low end of the amended range) but gave the government an opportunity to object. The government has filed an objection (Doc. 112), arguing that the Court should exercise its discretion to deny relief in light of the Defendant's prison disciplinary record. While it is true that the Defendant has a compiled a lengthy prison disciplinary record over 22 years of incarceration, the proposed reduction of 36 months amounts to only 10 percent of the total sentence. Moreover, the Court finds that a sentence of 324 months is sufficient to meet the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, the govern ment's objection is overruled. A separate order will be entered reducing Defendant's sentence to 324 months.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
