U.S. v. MURDOCK, CR 410-159-04. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20161228a19
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 27, 2016
Summary: ORDER DUDLEY H. BOWEN , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the Order of May 26, 2015, which granted Defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(g)(2) based upon Amendment 782 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant now asks the Court to sentence him at the low end of the new guideline range. The reduction of sentence under 3582 (c) is a matter within this Court's sound judicial discretion. United
Summary: ORDER DUDLEY H. BOWEN , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the Order of May 26, 2015, which granted Defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(g)(2) based upon Amendment 782 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant now asks the Court to sentence him at the low end of the new guideline range. The reduction of sentence under 3582 (c) is a matter within this Court's sound judicial discretion. United S..
More
ORDER
DUDLEY H. BOWEN, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the Order of May 26, 2015, which granted Defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(g)(2) based upon Amendment 782 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant now asks the Court to sentence him at the low end of the new guideline range.
The reduction of sentence under § 3582 (c) is a matter within this Court's sound judicial discretion. United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 1998) ("Both the language of § 3582(c)(2) and this circuit's precedent indicate that the sentencing court's power to reduce sentence is discretionary."). In considering Defendant's motion to reduce, I considered all relevant § 3553(a) factors including the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense and to protect the public. I determined that a term of 128 months imprisonment as to his conspiracy conviction is the appropriate societal response to Defendant's conduct, and I remain convinced of the same. No further reduction is warranted. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for reconsideration (doc. no. 875) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
