U.S. v. CURRIE, 5:15-CR-00172-F11. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20161103c01
Visitors: 19
Filed: Nov. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 01, 2016
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendant Adriann Roshanda Currie's motion [DE-638] for a reduction in his sentence. Once it has imposed a term of imprisonment, the court may modify that term in only three specific circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). Those instances are: (1) upon a motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons; (2) pursuant to a Rule 35 motion brought by the government; and (3) pursuant to a sentencing range lowered b
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendant Adriann Roshanda Currie's motion [DE-638] for a reduction in his sentence. Once it has imposed a term of imprisonment, the court may modify that term in only three specific circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). Those instances are: (1) upon a motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons; (2) pursuant to a Rule 35 motion brought by the government; and (3) pursuant to a sentencing range lowered by..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendant Adriann Roshanda Currie's motion [DE-638] for a reduction in his sentence.
Once it has imposed a term of imprisonment, the court may modify that term in only three specific circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Those instances are: (1) upon a motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons; (2) pursuant to a Rule 35 motion brought by the government; and (3) pursuant to a sentencing range lowered by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o). Id.
Here, Defendant argues that he is entitled to a reduction in his sentence pursuant to Amendment 794 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. As the court explained in its Order dated October 13, 2016, the U.S. Sentencing Commission did not make Amendment 794 retroactive. [DE-625]. Thus, the instant matter does not fall within any of the three circumstances in which the court may modify a term of imprisonment. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
