Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. MARTINEZ, CR 10-00824-006 DLJ. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150130773 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER U.S.S.G. 1B1.1(b) AND AMENDMENT 782 BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties acting through their respective counsel, that: 1. Defendant is making an unopposed motion for modification of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). 2. Defendant's original guideline calculation was as follows: Total Offense Level: 27 Criminal History Category: I Guideline Ra
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1(b) AND AMENDMENT 782

BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties acting through their respective counsel, that:

1. Defendant is making an unopposed motion for modification of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

2. Defendant's original guideline calculation was as follows:

Total Offense Level: 27 Criminal History Category: I Guideline Range: 70 to 87 months Mandatory Minimum: None

3. Defendant was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment on June 14, 2012.

4. According to the Bureau of Prisons, Defendant's current projected release date is December 14, 2015.

5. Effective November 1, 2014, this Court may order a modification in defendant's sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1), and Amendment 782, to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual.

6. Defendant's revised guideline calculation is as follows:

Total Offense Level: 25 Criminal History Category: I Guideline Range: 57 to 71 months Mandatory Minimum: None

7. The parties have no reason to dispute the Sentence Reduction Investigation Report submitted to the Court by the Probation Office.

8. Based upon the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate that the Court may enter an order reducing Defendant's term of custody to "57 months, but not less than the time of imprisonment that the Defendant has served as of November 1, 2015."

9. The parties further stipulate that the Court may include in its amended judgment a recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons that the Defendant be transferred to a halfway house at the appropriate time before his release on November 1, 2015.

10. The parties further stipulate that all other aspects of the original judgment order including the length of term of supervised release, all conditions of supervision, fines, restitution, and special assessment remain as previously imposed.

11. The parties further stipulate that the Court's Order will take effect on November 1, 2015.

12. Defendant stipulates that he waives and does not request a hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 43, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

13. Defendant waives his right to appeal the district court's sentence.

14. Accordingly, the parties agree that an amended judgment in accordance with this stipulation may be entered by the Court in pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1), Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual. A Sentencing Reduction Investigation Report and a proposed amended judgment will be submitted to the Court.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer