Opinion
Case No: 4:04CR644(JCH) USM No: 31493-044
02-21-2012
United States of America v. Michael McDowell
Date of Original Judgment: 05/13/2005
Date of Previous Amended Judgment: _________________
(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any)
Joel Schwartz
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 _________________ months is reduced to _________________
(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)
Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated_________________ shall remain in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Effective Date: _________________
(ifdifferent from order date)
Jean C. Hamilton
Judge's signature
Jean C. Hamilton, US District Judge
Printed name and title
DEFENDANT: Michael McDowell
CASE NUMBER: 4:04CR644(JCH)
DISTRICT: Eastern District of Missouri
I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)
Previous Total Offense Level: _________________Amended Total Offense Level: _________________
Criminal History Category: _________________Criminal History Category: _________________
Previous Guideline Range: _________to __________months Amended Guideline Range: _____to _______months
II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO THE 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 substantial assistance departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the amended guideline range.
[] The reduced sentence is above the amended guideline range.