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 of America v. Tyler M. Horrell

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


December 8, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TYLER M. HORRELL, DEFENDANT.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Tyler M. Horrell's motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Doc. 175), Mr. Horrell's motion to dismiss his attorney and for new counsel (Doc. 179), and counsel's motion to withdraw as attorney and for a "no merits" statement (Doc. 181).

The Court has fully considered Mr. Horrell's motion for reduction and counsel's motion to withdraw. The amount of crack cocaine attributed to Mr. Horrell was 283.4 grams. Mr. Horrell received the benefit of a reduction pursuant to the 2008 retroactive sentencing guidelines, reducing his sentencing range from 235 to 293 months to 188 to 235 months. Mr. Horrell was resentenced to 210 months (Doc. 154). The new crack cocaine guideline amendment, retroactive as of November 1, 2011, would result in a base offense level of 32. Mr. Horrell receives a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice, resulting in a total offense level of 34 (with his unaffected criminal history category remaining III). An offense level of 34 and criminal history category III yield a 188 to 235 sentencing guideline range. This is the same guideline range effective when Mr. Horrell was re-sentenced by the Court on March 23, 2009.

The 2011 Fair Sentencing Act amendment does not change Mr. Horrell's guideline sentencing range. Therefore, he is not eligible for reduction of his sentence. See United States v. Taylor, 627 F.3d 674, 676 (7th Cir. 2010) ("Relief under the statute [18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)] is not available when a retroactive amendment 'does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.'" citing United States Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B)). Counsel's motion to withdraw and for a "no merit" statement is thus GRANTED, Mr. Horrell's motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 is DENIED, and Mr. Horrell's motion for new counsel is MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

G. PATRICK MURPHY United States District Judge

20111208

© 1992-2011 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.