Opinion
4:19-CR-00273-01-LPR
11-29-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. ANDREW MARTIN HILTON DEFENDANT
ORDER
LEE P. RUDOFSKY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence (Doc. 91) is DENIED.
Defendant asserts that he is entitled to a sentence reduction based on guideline Amendment 821's retroactive changes to “status points.” Amendment 821 does not apply to his case because he did not receive “status points.” Additionally, he was sentenced as a career offender, which means his guideline range remains VI.
See U.S.S.G 1.10 (a)(2) (“Exclusions.-A reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if- . . . an amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.”).
Finally, Defendant's plea agreement provides that he “waives the right to have these sentence modified pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3582(c)(2) ” Because Defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into his plea agreement, including this waiver, he is not entitled to relief.
Doc. 80.
United States v. Cowan, 781 Fed.Appx. 571 (8th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of a § 3582 (c)(2) motion when the record establish that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea agreement).
IT IS SO ORDERED.