From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Hairston

United States District Court1 for the Western District of Virginia
Jan 24, 2012
Case No: 4:08cr00022-001 (W.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2012)

Opinion

Case No: 4:08cr00022-001 USM No: 12293-084

01-24-2012

United States of America v. TSAIKUWN ALDAGO HAIRSTON


Date of Previous Judgment: 02/01/2010

(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 [√] 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 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 __________________ months is reduced to __________________ .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: __________________ Amended Offense Level: __________________

Criminal History Category: __________________ Criminal History Category: __________________

Previous Guideline Range: ________ to________ months Amended Guideline Range:________ to ________ 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 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

Guideline computations are based on 288 kilograms of cocaine powder; therefore, Defendant is ineligible for a reduction under Amendment 750. Additionally, Defendant's Motion to Appoint Counsel and Motion for a Hearing [ECF No. 179] are both DENIED.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. Effective Date: __________________

Of different from order date)

__________________

Judge's signature

Senior United States District Judge

Printed name and title


Summaries of

United States v. Hairston

United States District Court1 for the Western District of Virginia
Jan 24, 2012
Case No: 4:08cr00022-001 (W.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Hairston

Case Details

Full title:United States of America v. TSAIKUWN ALDAGO HAIRSTON

Court:United States District Court1 for the Western District of Virginia

Date published: Jan 24, 2012

Citations

Case No: 4:08cr00022-001 (W.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2012)