U.S. v. Sherman, 2:01-cr-00153-GEB. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190315a38
Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 14, 2019
Summary: ORDER SCHEDULING A RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO A SENTENCE REDUCTION MOTION GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. , Senior District Judge . Defendant Parish Michael Sherman filed a motion in pro pria persona on December 9, 2011, in which he argues his prison sentence should be reduced under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). ECF No. 29 at 2. Sherman filed another sentence reduction motion under the same statute on February 1, 2012, and an amended sentence reduction motion under the same statute on February 9, 2012. ECF Nos.
Summary: ORDER SCHEDULING A RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO A SENTENCE REDUCTION MOTION GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. , Senior District Judge . Defendant Parish Michael Sherman filed a motion in pro pria persona on December 9, 2011, in which he argues his prison sentence should be reduced under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). ECF No. 29 at 2. Sherman filed another sentence reduction motion under the same statute on February 1, 2012, and an amended sentence reduction motion under the same statute on February 9, 2012. ECF Nos. ..
More
ORDER SCHEDULING A RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO A SENTENCE REDUCTION MOTION
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR., Senior District Judge.
Defendant Parish Michael Sherman filed a motion in pro pria persona on December 9, 2011, in which he argues his prison sentence should be reduced under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). ECF No. 29 at 2. Sherman filed another sentence reduction motion under the same statute on February 1, 2012, and an amended sentence reduction motion under the same statute on February 9, 2012. ECF Nos. 30 and 31. Sherman argues he is entitled to a sentence reduction because of the retroactive reduction of the "sentencing disparity between crack (base) and powder cocaine" under the amended Sentencing Guidelines contained in USSG § 2D1.1. ECF No. 29 at 1, 2; ECF No. 30 at 2; ECF No. 31 at 4.
This case was reassigned to the undersigned judge on January 8, 2016, ECF No. 34, and he just learned about the pendency of the motion on March 14, 2019.
Since the Federal Defender has been served with the motion and has not filed a document indicating that Sherman should be appointed counsel on his motion, the United States Attorney's Office shall file a response to the motion no later than fourteen days after the date on which this order is filed.
The United States Attorney and the Federal Defender shall be included in the service of this order.
Source: Leagle
