Smith v. United States

2 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Thweatt

    Case No.: PWG-14-474 (D. Md. Jul. 24, 2017)

    However, the Court lacks authority to consider this request because a sentence may only be reduced based on "extraordinary and compelling reasons" if the Director of the Bureau of Prisons makes a motion on the incarcerated individual's behalf. 18 U.S.C. ยง 3582(c)(1)(A); Smith v. United States, Civ. No. RWT-13-1034, Crim. No. RWT-10-761, 2015 WL 2452416, at *3 (D. Md. May 19, 2015). Thweatt does not state that the Director has made such a motion on his behalf, and the Court is not in receipt of any such motion.

  2. Jefferies v. United States

    Civil Action No. DKC 13-1848 (D. Md. Sep. 13, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    (See ECF Nos. 26, at 2-4; 49-3, at 6:13-7:4, 19:3-21:19). See Smith v. United States, No. RWT-13-1034, 2015 WL 2452416, at *2 (D.Md. May 19, 2015) ("One obvious reason that even a relatively severe miscalculation of sentencing exposure does not ordinarily constitute ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of a guilty plea is that any erroneous advice a defendant receives on sentencing exposure will get corrected prior to the acceptance of a guilty plea, either within the plea agreement itself, or at the very least during a properly conducted Rule 11 colloquy."). The plea agreement, signed by Petitioner, explains that the court has "the power to impose a sentence up to and including the statutory minimum established by statute."