Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. URIARTE-ACOSTA, 2:05-cr-050-RCJ-PAL. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20151119b24 Visitors: 15
Filed: Nov. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 09, 2015
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION FOR A SENTENCE REDUCTION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . The United States of America, by Assistant United States Attorney Elizabeth O. White, and Defendant Prudencio Uriarte-Acosta, by Assistant Federal Public Defender Nisha Brooks-Whittington, submit the following Joint Stipulation for Discretionary Relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The parties agree and stipulate to the following: A. Material Facts in Support of Joint
More

JOINT STIPULATION FOR A SENTENCE REDUCTION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

The United States of America, by Assistant United States Attorney Elizabeth O. White, and Defendant Prudencio Uriarte-Acosta, by Assistant Federal Public Defender Nisha Brooks-Whittington, submit the following Joint Stipulation for Discretionary Relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

The parties agree and stipulate to the following:

A. Material Facts in Support of Joint Stipulation

Defendant was previously convicted and sentenced for offenses involving controlled substances.

On February 25, 2008, this Court sentenced Defendant to 216 months' imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846; and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii). This Court previously found: (a) that Defendant's total offense level was 36; (2) that Defendant's criminal history category was I; and (c) that the guidelines sentencing range was 188-235 months' imprisonment. This Court imposed a sentence in the high-middle of the guidelines range.

Following imposition of sentence, the U.S. Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 782, which took effect on November 1, 2014. Amendment 782 (a) reduces the guidelines offense levels across all drug types, and (b) with certain limitations, applies retroactively to defendants sentenced prior to November 1, 2014.

Defendant seeks a discretionary reduction in sentence pursuant to Amendment 782, and in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) which (among other things) provides that, in certain circumstances, a sentencing court "may reduce the term of imprisonment." Pursuant to Amendment 788, sentencing reductions under Amendment 782 may not result in a defendant's release from BOP custody prior to November 1, 2015.

B. Terms of Sentence Reduction Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Defendant is eligible for a discretionary reduction to the guideline imprisonment range, and the parties agree that a reduction is appropriate. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Guidelines Amendment 782: (a) Defendant's revised total offense level is 34; (b) Defendant's criminal history category remains I; and (c), the revised advisory guidelines sentence is 151-188 months' imprisonment. Based on the foregoing, the parties jointly recommend that Defendant's sentence be reduced to 173 months' imprisonment, a sentence in the high middle of the revised guidelines range. The parties understand and stipulate that, if this reduced sentence would result in a release date prior to November 1, 2015, then the defendant will be ordered released on November 1, 2015.

C. Waivers; Review and Consent of Defendant

Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives any right to appeal any aspect of the revised sentence, except that, if the revised sentence exceeds the recommended term of 173 months, or November 1, 2015, whichever is later, Defendant may appeal that aspect of the revised sentence. See Declaration, attached as Exhibit 1.

Defendant (a) waives any right he may have to a hearing on his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); (b) waives any right he may have to attend such a hearing; (c) has reviewed this stipulation with defense counsel; and (d) agrees with and consents to this stipulation. See Declaration, attached as Exhibit 1.

D. Acknowledgment of Reserved Rights

Notwithstanding this Joint Stipulation, the United States expressly preserves and does not waive its contentions that a defendant seeking relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has no constitutional or statutory right to counsel, to a hearing on the motion, or to be present at any hearing on the motion.

E. Conclusion

Based on the above, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order granting Defendant a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and reducing his sentence to 173 months' imprisonment; with all other provisions of the judgment dated March 18, 2008, to remain in effect; and with an "effective date" of November 1, 2015.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Exhibit 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 2:0R-cr-050-RCJ-PAL ) PRUDENCIO URIARTE-ACOSTA, ) ) Defendant. )

DELARATION IN SUPPORT OF JOINT STIPULATION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

1. I, Prudencio Uriarte-Acosta, flnl the Defendant in the above-cnptioned case and the movant seeking relief in a pending motion under 18 U.S.C. §:3582(c)(2). 2. I have read and discussed with my attorney, Nisha Brooks-Whittington, the "Joint Stipulation for a Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)" (the "Joint Stipulation") to he filed in this CHBe. 3. I agree with and consent to the Joint Stipulation. 4. My attorney has explained my appellate rights to me. I hereby knowmgly and voluntarily waive the rig;ht to appeal any aspect of the revised sentence imposed by the Court under the terms of the Joint Stipulation, except that, if the revised sentence exceeds the recommended term of 173 months' imprisonment, or November 1, 2015, whichever is later, I may appeal that aspect of the revised sentence. 5. I hereby waive any right I may have to a hearing on my pending motion for discretionary relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), or to attend such a hearing. DATED this 25 day of Sept, 2015. ________________________________ Prudencio Uriarte-Acosta

FootNotes


1. The parties make this joint recommendation after having reviewed the Defendant's progress reports from the Bureau of Prisons, along with other relevant records. If the Court is inclined to deny the jointly recommended sentence reduction, the parties respectfully requests an opportunity to provide those records for the Court's review, and make additional argument in support of the joint stipulation.
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