From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richardson v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
May 14, 2010
CASE NOS. 1:08 CR 508-001, 1:10CV1097 (N.D. Ohio May. 14, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NOS. 1:08 CR 508-001, 1:10CV1097.

May 14, 2010


Memorandum of Opinion and Order


This matter is before the Court upon petitioner's Motion for Correction and or for Reduction of Sentence (Doc. 23). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

Petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2009. The argument is rejected. Congress has not passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2009. Accordingly, as this bill is not law, it affords petitioner no relief. The Court further rejects any argument that petitioner is entitled to relief because he was taking a "mood altering" drug at the time of sentencing. The drug sheet attached to petitioner's motion does not identify any side effect that would interfere with petitioner's ability to participate at the sentencing. Nor does petitioner claim he was unable to understand or participate in the proceedings. Although mentioning in passing that his counsel was "ineffective," petitioner offers no factual basis or argument in support of this statement. Accordingly, petitioner fails to identify any ground entitling him to relief. Petitioner's motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Richardson v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
May 14, 2010
CASE NOS. 1:08 CR 508-001, 1:10CV1097 (N.D. Ohio May. 14, 2010)
Case details for

Richardson v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:Jerrod Richardson, Petitioner, v. United States of America, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: May 14, 2010

Citations

CASE NOS. 1:08 CR 508-001, 1:10CV1097 (N.D. Ohio May. 14, 2010)