Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Tamez, 2:11-CR-40-1H. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20191112894 Visitors: 34
Filed: Nov. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM J. HOWARD , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on defendant's motion for reconsideration. The court previously granted a reduction in sentence to defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive crack cocaine guideline amendment 782. [DE #120]. The court has attached a copy of its previous order for defendant's convenience. The court has carefully considered defendant's motion, [DE #129], as well as the record in this matter, and finds
More

ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant's motion for reconsideration. The court previously granted a reduction in sentence to defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive crack cocaine guideline amendment 782. [DE #120]. The court has attached a copy of its previous order for defendant's convenience. The court has carefully considered defendant's motion, [DE #129], as well as the record in this matter, and finds no further relief is warranted. The court notes defendant believes his criminal history category was II, but the PSR and other matters of record indicate a criminal history category of III. Therefore, the court DENIES defendant's motion [DE #139].

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION

NO. 2:11-CR-00040-1H UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ORDER (Under Seal) BENITO ARMENDARIZ-TAMEZ, Defendant.

This matter is before the court on defendant's Motion to Compel the Government to Adhere to the Cooperation Agreement and File a Rule 35 Motion for the Petitioner's Substantial Assistance in the Prosecution of Others filed March 22, 2018 [DE #122]. By order dated May 8, 2018 this court asked the government to file an appropriate response. The government has replied and stated that "The extent of the defendant's assistance has been considered and already resulted in the government filing a motion for downward departure due to Substantial Assistance, which the court granted on October 17, 2012." The court granted the downward departure motion and reduced defendant's sentence by 34 percent on Count 1. Finding no additional basis for a Rule 35 motion, the government does not plan to file one. Therefore defendant's motions are without merit and are hereby DENIED.

This 9th day of August 2018.

________ MALCOLM J. HOWARD Senior United States District Judge
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