Opinion
CASE NUMBER: 1:10 CR 51
09-18-2017
WILLIAM HAGLER Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner, William Hagler's "Motion for Reconsideration" [DE 386] filed on August 18, 2017 wherein he requests reconsideration of this Court's July 25, 2017 Opinion and Order [DE 385] denying his "Motion for Reduction of Sentence." [DE 382]. This Motion will be DENIED.
Hagler's original Motion for Reduction was based on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York's decision in United States v. Holloway, 68 F. Supp. 3d 310 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). In Holloway, the district court permitted a sentence reduction even after the defendant had exhausted all of his post-conviction remedies in the "spirit of fairness," using the authority of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to revisit what the Court believed to be the defendant's excessive sentence. 68 F. Supp. 3d at 311, 314. There, as this Court explained at length in its previous Opinion and Order, the Government eventually acquiesced to the reduction of the Defendant's sentence and thus, Holloway received a reduction.
In his Motion, Hagler requests the undersigned to intercede on his behalf and "make a request to the prosecution to revisit Hagler's Petition with a 'critical eye'" (DE 386, at 1). This request appears to be in response to several cases where District Judges have made such requests to U.S. Attorneys, including the District Judge in the Holloway case, where the Court was of the opinion that the sentence was unduly harsh. See United States v. Ledezma-Rodriguez, ___ F.Supp. 3d ___, 2017 WL 1368983 (S.D. Iowa, April 10, 2017) and United States v. Ezell, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109814, at *39 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2015) (both cases encouraging the prosecutor to request a reduction of the defendant's sentence as in Holloway).
Unfortunately for Hagler, the undersigned will not make such a request. The Government's response to his original petition outlined in detail the reasons for the length of Hagler's sentence, not the least of which was his extensive criminal history. As the Government noted, there is nothing unduly harsh about the sentence Hagler received, especially in light of his criminal history. This Court has no reason to believe that the Government did not make a considered and fair assessment of the facts of his case and corresponding sentence when asked to respond to Hagler's original request for reduction and thus, there is no basis for this Court to intervene on his behalf. Accordingly, Hagler's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, [DE 386], is DENIED. SO ORDERED. This 18th day of September, 2017
s/ William C. Lee
United States District Court