Opinion
4:19-CR-00264-BSM
04-15-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. HAROLD BEASLEY DEFENDANT
ORDER
Harold Beasley's new motion to reduce his sentence [Doc. No. 93] is denied for the same reason that his first sentence reduction motion was denied-i.e., he waived the right to have his sentence modified under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3582(c)(2). See Doc. Nos. 65 at 3, and 74; United States v. Cowan, 781 Fed.Appx. 571, 571-72 (8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of a section 3582(c)(2) motion because defendant knowingly entered the plea agreement waiving reduction). The fact that Beasley has participated in a drug rehabilitation program during his incarceration and Beasley's objections to his reduction waiver as against public policy do not undermine the validity of the waiver. Additionally, Beasley's request for the appointment of counsel is denied because there is no right to appointed counsel in sentence modification proceedings. United States v. Harris, 568 F.3d 666, 669 (8th Cir. 2009).
IT IS SO ORDERED.