Opinion
Case No. 1:98-CR-41.
December 15, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court subsequent to Petitioner, Contrell Coleman's ("Coleman"), "Motion for Resentencing Hearing" filed on October 26, 2009. The Government responded on November 2, 2009, and Coleman replied on November 9, 2009.
Coleman's reply was actually mailed directly to Chambers by Coleman and thus, was not immediately filed and reflected as a Reply until after the court had an opportunity to review his pending motion. (See Docket Entry #81).
In January 2008, Coleman filed his initial pro se request for modification of his sentence based on the retroactive crack amendment effective March 3, 2008. Counsel was appointed and advised the Court that Coleman, who was originally sentenced on March 4, 1999, to 188 months imprisonment, was not entitled to a reduction in his offense level. Coleman's original sentence was based on the application of the career offender provision and he received a sentence at the low end of the guideline range. By Order dated March 14, 2008, the undersigned, looking to the filing by counsel and the Addendum by probation, both concurring that Coleman, a career offender, was not entitled to a sentencing reduction and deemed that no further action would be taken.
Coleman has now filed a "Motion for Resentencing Hearing" under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 arguing that he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission — specifically he is "asking the Court once the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 becomes `Law' that he be re-sentence according to the new Law, 1 to 1 crack ratio." (Motion p. 1-2). He also seeks appointment of counsel to assist him in this matter.
However, as of November 13, 2009, this bill referenced by Coleman is not the law and is only in the committee stage which is the first step of the legislative process. Seehttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1459. Thus, there is currently no law in effect and no law that has been given retroactive effect that would qualify Coleman for any type of a reduction in his sentence. Therefore, his present motion is premature, as this Court has no jurisdiction to affect his sentence of 188 months. Coleman's Motion is DENIED.
Because there is no law pending which would afford Coleman an opportunity to reduce his sentence, his request for Appointment of Counsel is also denied.