Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. King

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


December 29, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHRIS S. KING, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE

On June 19, 2009, the undersigned District Judge sentenced Chris King, following King's guilty plea to narcotics offenses (i.e., violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and § 841(b)). By pro se motion filed December 21, 2009, King now moves this Court to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). This Order advises Defendant King how his motion will be handled in this Court.

On December 10, 2007, the United States Supreme Court scrutinized the crack-cocaine-to-powder-cocaine sentencing disparity contained in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and held that federal district courts can deviate from the Guidelines in appropriate circumstances. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007). At that point, the U.S. Sentencing Commission had not determined whether November 2007 amendments to the Guidelines (reducing the base offense level associated with some crack cocaine offenses) would be retroactive.

On December 11, 2007, the Sentencing Commission decided that the amendments in question would be retroactively applied as of March 3, 2008.

On December 19, 2007, Chief Judge Herndon of this Court issued Administrative Order 102. That Order addresses the amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines and the motions to reduce sentence filed after these amendments.

Administrative Order 102 provides, inter alia:

(a) the Federal Public Defender's Office of the Southern District of Illinois "is hereby designated to represent each defendant" who files a motion to reduce sentence; and

(b) the U.S. Attorney's Office need not file any response to a motion to reduce sentence until March 10, 2008.

Administrative Order 102 is expressly made applicable to this case.

Pursuant to that Order, the undersigned Judge NOTIFIES Defendant King that his motion has been docketed in this Court (as Document # 40 or "Doc. 40") and that the Federal Public Defender's Office will be advised of this filing. This Order will be provided to the Federal Public Defender's Office and the United States Attorney's Office for this District, either automatically transmitted via the Court's electronic case filing system or otherwise sent by the Clerk's Office.

Although Administrative Order 102 appointed the Public Defender's Office to represent Defendant in any proceedings relating to the motion to reduce sentence, that appointment does not prevent Defendant from retaining private counsel, including any lawyer who may have represented Defendant in earlier proceedings in this District Court or the Court of Appeals.

Finally, the Court CLARIFIES that-at this time-no formal response need be filed and no briefing schedule will be set. The undersigned Judge is carefully monitoring the status of each motion to reduce sentence, including King's motion. If a formal response is needed, or if a hearing would be helpful, the undersigned Judge will enter a separate Order setting a briefing schedule or hearing, as appropriate and necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge

20091229

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.