U.S. v. Chafin, 1:16CR00041-015. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia
Number: infdco20180404b88
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JAMES P. JONES , District Judge . The defendant has filed a pro se motion seeking the reduction of her sentence under Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). A district court may modify the term of imprisonment "of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered[,]" if the amendment is listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable. Id. ; U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JAMES P. JONES , District Judge . The defendant has filed a pro se motion seeking the reduction of her sentence under Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). A district court may modify the term of imprisonment "of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered[,]" if the amendment is listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable. Id. ; U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES P. JONES, District Judge.
The defendant has filed a pro se motion seeking the reduction of her sentence under Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A district court may modify the term of imprisonment "of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered[,]" if the amendment is listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable. Id.; U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(1), (d). Amendment 794 is not so listed. In any event, the defendant was sentenced in 2017, after the adoption of Amendment 794, so that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) does not apply to her.
For these reasons, the defendant's motion (ECF No. 898) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
