Filed: Feb. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on the following: 1. Motion Seeking Reconsideration of the Court's Order Dated 9/28/16 (Doc. 148), filed October 11, 2016; and 2. Government's Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion (Doc. 167), filed January 20, 2017. DISCUSSION On October 3, 2012, this Court adjudged Roberto Antonio Lozado (" Lozado ") guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a certain amount of cocaine in violatio
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on the following: 1. Motion Seeking Reconsideration of the Court's Order Dated 9/28/16 (Doc. 148), filed October 11, 2016; and 2. Government's Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion (Doc. 167), filed January 20, 2017. DISCUSSION On October 3, 2012, this Court adjudged Roberto Antonio Lozado (" Lozado ") guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a certain amount of cocaine in violation..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on the following:
1. Motion Seeking Reconsideration of the Court's Order Dated 9/28/16 (Doc. 148), filed October 11, 2016; and
2. Government's Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion (Doc. 167), filed January 20, 2017.
DISCUSSION
On October 3, 2012, this Court adjudged Roberto Antonio Lozado ("Lozado") guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a certain amount of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 & 841(b)(1)(ii)(II). (See Doc. 98.) The Court also sentenced Lozado to a 140-month term of imprisonment in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). (See id. ("Sentence").)
Upon Lozado's pro se motion (Doc. 130 ("3582 Motion")) and a memorandum from the U.S. Probation Office (Docs. 131, 133), the Court determined that Lozado was not "eligible" for a sentencing reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because of his designation as a "career criminal." (See Doc. 134 ("3582 Order").) Thus, the Court denied Lozado's pro se motion. (See id.) Two days after the 3582 Order, Lozado filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence ("2255 Motion"). (Doc. 135; see Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-1412-Orl-37DAB.) The Court denied the 2255 Motion on July 5, 2016 ("2255 Order"). (Docs. 140, 141.)
Proceeding pro se, Lozado then filed an "In Time Motion" requesting reduction of his Sentence based on "the recently amended clarifying amendment 794 `Minor Role Reduction'" ("794 Motion"). (Doc. 142.) After the Government responded (Doc. 145), the Court denied the 794 Motion in an Order dated September 28, 2016 ("794 Order"). (Doc. 146). Lozado then promptly requested reconsideration of the 794 Order ("Reconsideration Motion"). (Doc. 148; see also Doc. 149.) On the Court's direction, the Government filed a response to the Reconsideration Motion ("Response"). (Doc. 167; see Doc. 165.)
Upon consideration of the procedural history and the recent briefing from Lozado and the Government, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish that reconsideration is warranted. An "In Time Motion" is not an authorized procedural mechanism to seek modification of a criminal sentence and judgment. Further, the Court is not persuaded that the 794 Motion and Reconsideration Motion are not successive to the 2255 Motion. Accordingly, the Reconsideration Motion is due to be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Roberto Antonio Lozado's Motion Seeking Reconsideration of the Court's Order Dated 9/28/16 (Doc. 148) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
