U.S. v. LOPEZ, 12-532. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150909d81
Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 04, 2015
Summary: ORDER PAUL S. DIAMOND , District Judge . On August 21, 2015, Defendant moved pro se for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and Guidelines Amendment 782. (Doc. No. 93.) On May 20, 2013, Defendant Bobby Lopez came before me and pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. (Docs. No. 39, 40.) In determining Defendant's base offense level and applicable guideline range, the Probation Office applied a version of the Sentencin
Summary: ORDER PAUL S. DIAMOND , District Judge . On August 21, 2015, Defendant moved pro se for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and Guidelines Amendment 782. (Doc. No. 93.) On May 20, 2013, Defendant Bobby Lopez came before me and pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. (Docs. No. 39, 40.) In determining Defendant's base offense level and applicable guideline range, the Probation Office applied a version of the Sentencing..
More
ORDER
PAUL S. DIAMOND, District Judge.
On August 21, 2015, Defendant moved pro se for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Guidelines Amendment 782. (Doc. No. 93.) On May 20, 2013, Defendant Bobby Lopez came before me and pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. (Docs. No. 39, 40.) In determining Defendant's base offense level and applicable guideline range, the Probation Office applied a version of the Sentencing Guidelines that incorporated the changes effectuated by Amendment 782. Defendant made no objections at the sentencing hearing held on March 25, 2015, and I accordingly adopted Probation's findings. (Docs. No. 87.) On March 31, 2015, I entered Judgment. (Doc. No. 88.) Defendant has therefore already received the benefit of Amendment 782 at sentencing and is ineligible for a further sentence reduction.
AND NOW, this 3rd day of September, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant's pro se Motion for Reduction of Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Guidelines Amendment 782 (Doc. No. 93), and the Government's Response (Doc. 94.), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 93.) is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
