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. Morris

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


April 6, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHRISTOPHER A. MORRIS, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court

ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge

On August 19, 2009, Christopher A. Morris filed a motion for retroactive application of sentencing guidelines to crack cocaine offenses pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (Doc. 76). The Court appointed counsel to represent Morris on this issue, and counsel has now moved to withdraw on the basis that he can make no non-frivolous arguments in support of a reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (Doc. 81).See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Morris did not respond to the motion to withdraw, even though he was given an opportunity to do so.

On March 1, 2002, Morris was sentenced to a 92 month term of imprisonment (Doc. 36& 39). As part of this sentence, Morris was ordered to serve five years on supervised release following his release from the Bureau of Prisons. His supervision commenced on June 8, 2005, but approximately three months later, the Government petitioned the Court to revoke his supervised release (See Doc. 48). After a hearing on the petition to revoke in October 2005 (See Doc. 58), Morris was sentenced to a 21 month term of imprisonment (Doc. 59). Morris was again released on October 9, 2008, but five months later, the Government again petitioned the Court to revoke his supervised release (Doc. 61). After a hearing on the petition to revoke in May 2009 (Doc. 72) Morris was sentenced to 15 month term of imprisonment (Doc. 73).

Because Morris has already served his original prison sentence, he is not entitled to a sentence reduction. See United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 589 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied sub nom McKnight v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1924 (2009). As the Seventh Circuit noted in Forman, Application Note 4(A) to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.10 anticipates and forecloses an argument that a term of imprisonment imposed after revocation of supervised release can be reduced following the crack cocaine amendment: "This section does not authorize a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release."

The Court therefore GRANTS counsel's motion to withdraw (Doc. 81) and DISMISSES for lack of jurisdiction the motion for a sentence reduction (Doc. 76).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 6th day of April, 2010.

20100406

© 1992-2010 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.