Filed: Jun. 06, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2013
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge. Now before the court are Defendant Jermaine Donnell Kornegay's July 5, 2011, September 2, 2011, and April 17, 2013, filings [DE-76, DE-77, DE-89], in which Defendant asks the court to correct a clerical error in its May 5, 2009, order regarding motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) [DE-62], and to apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to his sentence. The court has reviewed the order for re-sentencing, and finds that it con
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge. Now before the court are Defendant Jermaine Donnell Kornegay's July 5, 2011, September 2, 2011, and April 17, 2013, filings [DE-76, DE-77, DE-89], in which Defendant asks the court to correct a clerical error in its May 5, 2009, order regarding motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) [DE-62], and to apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to his sentence. The court has reviewed the order for re-sentencing, and finds that it cont..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge.
Now before the court are Defendant Jermaine Donnell Kornegay's July 5, 2011, September 2, 2011, and April 17, 2013, filings [DE-76, DE-77, DE-89], in which Defendant asks the court to correct a clerical error in its May 5, 2009, order regarding motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) [DE-62], and to apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to his sentence.
The court has reviewed the order for re-sentencing, and finds that it contains no errors. Defendant's attorney correctly explains the re-sentencing calculation in her memorandum in support of motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [DE-86 at 3-4.] Further, as Defendant was sentenced prior to the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act, it is not retroactively applicable to him. United States v. Allen, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 1777564, at *7 (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2013) ("[T]he Fair Sentencing Act therefore applies to all sentences imposed after its enactment...."(emphasis added)).
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that DE-76, DE-77, and DE-89 are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
