U.S. v. DAVIS, 4:06-CR-00210-BRW. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20130711724
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 10, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2013
Summary: ORDER BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge. Pending is Defendant's pro se Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 61) requesting that I reconsider my May 14, 2013 Order denying Defendant's Motion for Sentence Reduction. Defendant contends that I should reconsider my ruling in light of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Blewett. 1 The Sixth Circuit's ruling, however, does not affect Defendant's case. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to adopt the Sixth C
Summary: ORDER BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge. Pending is Defendant's pro se Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 61) requesting that I reconsider my May 14, 2013 Order denying Defendant's Motion for Sentence Reduction. Defendant contends that I should reconsider my ruling in light of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Blewett. 1 The Sixth Circuit's ruling, however, does not affect Defendant's case. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to adopt the Sixth Ci..
More
ORDER
BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge.
Pending is Defendant's pro se Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 61) requesting that I reconsider my May 14, 2013 Order denying Defendant's Motion for Sentence Reduction.
Defendant contends that I should reconsider my ruling in light of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Blewett.1
The Sixth Circuit's ruling, however, does not affect Defendant's case. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to adopt the Sixth Circuit's position in Blewett.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. 2013 WL 21219445 (6th Cir. May 17, 2013).
2. See United States v. Reeves, 2013 WL 3155945 (8th Cir. June 24, 2013) ("[E]ight of the nine federal circuits to address the issue have held that the statutory provisions applicable when the defendant was originally sentenced—not the statutory provisions in the Fair Sentencing Act—apply in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See United States v. Kelly, 716 F.3d 180, ___ (5th Cir.2013); United States v. Belt, No. 12-8029, ___ Fed.Appx. ___, ___, 2013 WL 1715577, at *1 (4th Cir. Apr. 22, 2013); United States v. Pratt, No. 12-3422, ___ Fed.Appx. ___, ___-___, 2013 WL 864464, at *1-2 (3d Cir. Mar 8, 2013); United States v. Lucero, 713 F.3d 1024, 1027-28 (10th Cir.2013); United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d 1290 (9th Cir.2013); United States v. Hippolyte, 712 F.3d 535, 542 (11th Cir.2013); United States v. Robinson, 697 F.3d 443, 444-45 (7th Cir.2012); United States v. Humphries, 502 Fed.Appx. 46, 47-48 (2d Cir.2012). But see United States v. Blewett, Nos. 12-5226, 12-5582, ___ F.3d ___, ___-___, 2013 WL 2121945, at *8-9 (6th Cir. May 17, 2013). We join the overwhelming majority of our sister circuits and hold that the Fair Sentencing Act does not apply retroactively to defendants who were sentenced before August 3, 2010, and who seek a reduction in their sentences under section 3582(c)(2).").
Source: Leagle
