UNITED S TATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of Illinois
January 22, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R. Herndon - United States District Chief Judge
USM No: 08015-025
Date of Previous Judgment: 01/26/2009
Ethan Skaggs (Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) ) Defendant's Attorney
Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
Upon motion of X the defendant ޫ the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ޫ the court under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), and having considered such motion,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:
ޫ DENIED. X GRANTED and the defendant's previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in the last judgment issued) of 210 months is reduced to 168 months .
I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)
Previous Offense Level: 31 Amended Offense Level: 29 Criminal History Category: VI Criminal History Category: VI Previous Guideline Range: 188 235 Amended Guideline Range: 151 to 188
II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE
X The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range. ޫ The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the amended guideline range. ޫ Other (explain):
III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
This Order is entered as the result of U.S.S.G. Amendment 706 as amended by 711, relating to crack cocaine. If this sentence is less than the amount of time the defendant has already served, the sentence is reduced to a "time served" sentence, understanding that it is the intent of the Court that this order not affect the length of supervised release ordered previously.
Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated 01/26/2009 shall remain in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.01.22 09:59:38 -06'00'
Effective Date: February 1, 2013
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.