U.S. v. COX, 2:03-cr-00068-MR-1. (2016)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20160209a42
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration." [Doc. 43]. On August 4, 2015, the Court granted the Defendant's motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 and reduced his previously imposed aggregate sentence of 198 months' imprisonment to 186 months. [Doc. 40]. The Defendant did not appeal. The Defendant then moved for reconsideration of the Court's Order, arguing that his senten
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration." [Doc. 43]. On August 4, 2015, the Court granted the Defendant's motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 and reduced his previously imposed aggregate sentence of 198 months' imprisonment to 186 months. [Doc. 40]. The Defendant did not appeal. The Defendant then moved for reconsideration of the Court's Order, arguing that his sentenc..
More
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration." [Doc. 43].
On August 4, 2015, the Court granted the Defendant's motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 and reduced his previously imposed aggregate sentence of 198 months' imprisonment to 186 months. [Doc. 40]. The Defendant did not appeal. The Defendant then moved for reconsideration of the Court's Order, arguing that his sentence should have been reduced to the low end of the amended Guidelines range. [Doc. 41]. The Court denied this motion for reconsideration. [Doc. 42]. The Defendant now files a second motion for reconsideration. [Doc. 43].
The Court is without authority to reconsider the Order granting the Defendant relief under § 3582. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the Defendant's second motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's "Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration" [Doc. 43] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
