U.S. v. COLE, 0:98-1126-JFA. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20120228c16
Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. In a letter motion dated January 29, 2012, the defendant requests that this court delay its review of his case regarding the current crack amendment. He contends that he is still being held accountable for a large drug quantity for which he has been exonerated as a result of the ruling in Apprendi. Presently, there is no motion pending before the court for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582 and Amendment 750 to the United States Sen
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. In a letter motion dated January 29, 2012, the defendant requests that this court delay its review of his case regarding the current crack amendment. He contends that he is still being held accountable for a large drug quantity for which he has been exonerated as a result of the ruling in Apprendi. Presently, there is no motion pending before the court for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582 and Amendment 750 to the United States Sent..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.
In a letter motion dated January 29, 2012, the defendant requests that this court delay its review of his case regarding the current crack amendment. He contends that he is still being held accountable for a large drug quantity for which he has been exonerated as a result of the ruling in Apprendi.
Presently, there is no motion pending before the court for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 and Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to stay (ECF No. 800) is moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
