U.S. v. Diaz, 11 Cr. 569 (PAC). (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20180613905
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2018
Summary: OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. CROTTY , District Judge . Angel Diaz, pro se, filed a motion requesting a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Court denies the motion. Diaz cites Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which instituted a two-level, retroactive reduction to the Guidelines base offense level for certain categories of drug-related offenses. To be eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to Section 3582, Diaz's sentence must be "base
Summary: OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. CROTTY , District Judge . Angel Diaz, pro se, filed a motion requesting a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Court denies the motion. Diaz cites Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which instituted a two-level, retroactive reduction to the Guidelines base offense level for certain categories of drug-related offenses. To be eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to Section 3582, Diaz's sentence must be "based..
More
OPINION & ORDER
PAUL A. CROTTY, District Judge.
Angel Diaz, pro se, filed a motion requesting a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Court denies the motion.
Diaz cites Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which instituted a two-level, retroactive reduction to the Guidelines base offense level for certain categories of drug-related offenses. To be eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to Section 3582, Diaz's sentence must be "based on a sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Diaz's sentence of 120 months in prison, however, is based on two consecutive 60-month statutory minimums mandated by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) & 846, and 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i) & (D)(ii). Amendment 782 may have affected Diaz's advisory guidelines range, but it did not alter the statutory minimums that formed the basis of his sentence. Accordingly, Diaz is not eligible for a sentence reduction under Section 3582. See United States v. Williams, 551 F.3d 182, 186 (2d Cir. 2009) ("[Defendant] is ineligible for a modification of his sentence under § 3582(c)(2) because his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum. . . .").
The Court denies Diaz's motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
