From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Flowers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Western District of North Carolina
Dec 2, 2011
Case No: DNCW305CR000391-006 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 2, 2011)

Opinion

Case No: DNCW305CR000391-006 USM No: 09257-058

12-02-2011

United States of America v. Arthur Flowers, Jr.

Federal Defender Defendant's Attorney


Date of Original Judgment: October 30, 2007

Date of Last Amended Judgment: N/A

Federal Defender

Defendant's Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of [×] 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, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

[×] DENIED. [] GRANTED and the defendant's previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in the last judgment issued) of ___________ is reduced to ___________ I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Original Offense Level: 29 Amended Offense Level: 29

Criminal History Category: II Criminal History Category: II

Original Guideline Range: 120 to 121 months Amended Guideline Range: 120 to 121 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

[] 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 and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the amended guideline range.

[] The reduced sentence is above the amended guideline range.

[×] Other (explain): Note: At the defendant's sentencing hearing on October 30, 2007, the Court took Amendment 706 into consideration and granted a two-level reduction in offense level. After considering the most recent crack cocaine amendment, no change is made as the drug amount remains at a base offense level of 32 (between 1,000 to 3,000 kilograms of marijuana equivalency); therefore, the total offense level did not change from a level 29. No reduction is recommended.

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated October 30, 2007, shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Effective Date: ________

(if different from order date)

Max O. Cogburn Jr.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Flowers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Western District of North Carolina
Dec 2, 2011
Case No: DNCW305CR000391-006 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 2, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Flowers

Case Details

Full title:United States of America v. Arthur Flowers, Jr.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Western District of North Carolina

Date published: Dec 2, 2011

Citations

Case No: DNCW305CR000391-006 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 2, 2011)