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. Brian L. Rush

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


January 12, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRIAN L. RUSH, DEFENDANT.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Brian L. Rush's motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Doc. 181). The Court appointed counsel to represent Mr. Rush on his motion, and counsel has now moved to withdraw as attorney and for a "no merits" statement (Doc. 185). See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Mr. Rush has not responded to counsel's motion.

The Court has fully considered Mr. Rush's motion for reduction and counsel's motion to withdraw. As was the case when Mr. Rush moved for relief pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) in 2008, Mr. Rush is not eligible for a reduction of sentence (Doc. 177). A defendant urging a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) must show: (1) the Sentencing Commission has lowered the applicable guideline sentencing range; and (2) that the reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). If the guideline amendment has not lowered the defendant's applicable guideline sentencing range, then the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider the reduction request. United States v. Lawrence, 535 F.3d 631, 637-38 (7th Cir. 2008); see United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 588 (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom McKnight v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1924 (2009). Such is the case hereSMr. Rush was sentenced based on his base offense level as a "career offender" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not on the basis of the relevant drug conduct guidelines. The Sentencing Commission's amendments "leave the career-offender guideline unchanged." United States v. Griffin, 652 F.3d 793, 803 (7th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, Mr. Rush is not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. Counsel's motion to withdraw and for a "no merit" statement (Doc. 185) is thus GRANTED and Mr. Rush's motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (Doc. 181) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

G. PATRICK MURPHY United States District Judge

20120112

© 1992-2012 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.