UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION
February 28, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
THOMAS L. CANNON, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY Chief U.S. District Judge
Tuesday, 28 February, 2012 01:07:42 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
This case is before the court for ruling on the pro se Motion for Reconsideration (#132) filed by Defendant, Thomas L. Cannon. Defendant's pro se Motion (#132) is DENIED.
On February 8, 2012, this court entered an Opinion (#131) which denied Defendant's pro so Motion to Reduce Sentence (#124). This court concluded that Defendant's sentence was not based on the offense level set forth in § 2D1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, but rather on the statutory mandatory minimum sentence for his offense. This court concluded that the retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines did not change the statutory mandatory minimum so that Defendant does not qualify for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). This court additionally noted that Defendant is not entitled to relief under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) because the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the FSA is not retroactive. United States v. Fisher, 635 F.3d 336, 340 (7th Cir. 2011), cert granted in Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 759 (2011); see also United States v. Campbell, 659 F.3d 607, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2011).
In his pro se Motion for Reconsideration (#132), Defendant cited an out of circuit district court case and argued that this court can reduce his statutory mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment because the crack cocaine guidelines "played a role" in determining his sentence. Defendant also attached exhibits showing that he has completed classes and been productive while in prison. However, because this court has no authority to reduce Defendant's statutory mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), Defendant's pro se Motion for Reconsideration (#132) is DENIED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant's pro se Motion for Reconsideration (#132) is DENIED.
Michael P. McCuskey
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.