Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Walker, 08-20277. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20160526c02 Visitors: 7
Filed: May 25, 2016
Latest Update: May 25, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF DRUG SENTENCING GUIDELINES (DKT. 35) AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT (DKT. 37) TERRENCE G. BERG , District Judge . Defendant Phillip Eugene Walker pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Dkt. 29). The Court sentenced Defendant to 33 months imprisonment (Dkt. 34). After he began serving his sentence, Defendant filed a motion for retroactive application of the sentencing guidelines for drug offenses (Dkt. 35). Defendant
More

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF DRUG SENTENCING GUIDELINES (DKT. 35) AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT (DKT. 37)

Defendant Phillip Eugene Walker pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Dkt. 29). The Court sentenced Defendant to 33 months imprisonment (Dkt. 34). After he began serving his sentence, Defendant filed a motion for retroactive application of the sentencing guidelines for drug offenses (Dkt. 35). Defendant also filed a motion for default, complaining that he was not given a copy of the transcript from his sentencing hearing, despite requesting one and that the Court erred in not granting his motion to dismiss for Speedy Trial Act violations. Both motions are DENIED.

As to Defendant's motion for retroactive application of the new drug sentencing guidelines, Defendant was not convicted or sentenced for a drug offense, thus he is plainly not entitled retroactive application of any drug sentencing guidelines. As to Defendant's second motion, the Court already carefully explained its reasons for denying Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 19). Defendant's motion for "default" does not establish that he is entitled to any other type of relief for an alleged failure to provide him with a copy of his sentencing transcript. The Court also notes that Defendant was released from federal custody on December 7, 2015. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motions are DENIED.

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