Opinion
Case No. 4:04-CR-00010-01 GTE.
April 30, 2008
ORDER
Defendant Scotty Ridley was previously identified as a defendant who might be eligible for a sentence reduction as a result of recent amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. For that reason, counsel was appointed to assist Mr. Ridley in seeking a sentence reduction. After examining this case further, it does not appear to the Court that Mr. Ridley is in fact eligible for a sentence reduction. It appears that Mr. Ridley's sentence was enhanced based on a prior drug trafficking conviction pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 and that he is presently serving a mandatory minimum sentence. In other words, Mr. Ridley's sentence was determined by application of a statute requiring that a sentence of not less than 20 years (120 months) be imposed. The applicable guideline range was 110 months to 125 months. While the applicable guideline range might well be lower under the recent amendment lowering the penalty for crack cocaine offenses, the guideline range is irrelevant in this case because Mr. Ridley is serving a statutory sentence rather than a guideline sentence. By statute, the Court may not impose a sentence less than 120 months, the sentence Mr. Ridley is already serving.
See United States Sentencing Commission Sentencing Guidelines, Amendment 706 (reducing the guideline range for crack cocaine offenses, effective November 1, 2007) and Amendment 711 (making Amendment 706 retroactive, effective March 3, 2008).
The Court directs Mr. Ridley's appointed counsel to discuss this issue with him. The Court understands that Mr. Ridley previously attempted to file a pro se motion to reduce his sentence, but such motion was not filed because he had appointed counsel. After consulting with his counsel, Mr. Ridley and his counsel may determine whether any motion should be filed on his behalf. If Mr. Ridley so chooses, he may elect to have his pro se motion filed with the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.