U.S. v. ROBINSON, 1:98-523-JFA. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20120118d35
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. Upon motion of the defendant under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG 1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), to t
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. Upon motion of the defendant under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG 1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), to th..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.
Upon motion of the defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG § 1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion (ECF No. 85) is DENIED. The defendant's guideline range was based upon his being found to be a Career Offender. Therefore, defendant's Guideline sentencing range, adopted by this court at sentencing, is unaffected by Amendment 750.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
