Filed: Jul. 30, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 30, 2013
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Mitigate Sentence (Dkt. #29). In his motion, Defendant states: Upon sentencing on October 21, 2011 in front of the Honorable Judge Moody, I was advise by this Court is there was a motion put in by the Government for my cooperation, which the Government have done on 6-24-2013 for my previous case that the Court will take in consideration to make my consecutive sentence meet down the line wi
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Mitigate Sentence (Dkt. #29). In his motion, Defendant states: Upon sentencing on October 21, 2011 in front of the Honorable Judge Moody, I was advise by this Court is there was a motion put in by the Government for my cooperation, which the Government have done on 6-24-2013 for my previous case that the Court will take in consideration to make my consecutive sentence meet down the line wit..
More
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Mitigate Sentence (Dkt. #29). In his motion, Defendant states:
Upon sentencing on October 21, 2011 in front of the Honorable Judge Moody, I was advise by this Court is there was a motion put in by the Government for my cooperation, which the Government have done on 6-24-2013 for my previous case that the Court will take in consideration to make my consecutive sentence meet down the line with case #8:11-cr-206-T-23TBM in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
From the docket in case number 8:11-cr-206-T-23TBM, it appears the Government filed a Rule 35 motion to reduce Fordham's sentence. Judge Merryday granted the motion and reduced Fordham's sentence in that case.
In his motion, Fordham asserts that this Court stated during his sentencing hearing that it would reduce the sentence if the Government filed a motion for reduction based upon substantial cooperation. But that is a misstatement of what this Court actually said. After having ruled in Fordham's favor on two objections to the calculation of the guidelines, the Court stated:
Having ruled in your favor in all of those, though, I don't see why I should give him a concurrent sentence, and I'm not going to give him a concurrent sentence. Perhaps he can qualify for a Rule 35 and get it shortened, but there's no reason to give a concurrent sentence.
Sentencing transcript, Dkt. #31, p. 9.
The Court's statement reflected the fact that, if the Government filed a Rule 35 motion in this case, the Court might reduce Fordham's sentence. The Government did, in fact, file a Rule 35 motion, but not in this case. Instead, it was filed in a separate case (8:11-cr-206-T-23TBM) in front of Judge Merryday.
Since no Rule 35 motion has been filed in this case, Fordham is not entitled to a reduction of his sentence by this Court.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant's Motion to Mitigate Sentence (Dkt. #29) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
