Opinion
Case No: 3:06cr00076-001 USM No: 04560-095
11-01-2011
United States of America v. CARLOS HIGGINBOTHAM
Rebecca Hudsmith Defendant's Attorney
Date of Previous Judgment: November 7, 2006
(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable)
Rebecca Hudsmith
Defendant's Attorney
Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
Upon motion of [ ] the defendant [ ] the Director of the Bureau of Prisons X the court under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:
X DENIED. [ ] GRANTED and the defendant's previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in the last judgment issued) of _________ months is reduced to ____________ . I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)
Previous Offense Level: _________ Amended Offense Level: _____________
Criminal History Category: ______ Criminal History Category: _______________
Previous Guideline Range: ________ to __________ months Amended Guideline Range: ________ to _________ month:
II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE
[ ] The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.
[ ] The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the amended guideline range.
[ ] Other (explain):
III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The retroactive application of the crack cocaine amendment which authorizes reductions in sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), only applies to defendants sentenced under sentencing guidelines enhanced by quantities of crack cocaine. Therefore, the defendant is not entitled to a reduction in sentence. Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated 11/07/2006 shall remain in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Effective Date: ____________
(if different from order date)
___________________
Judge's signature
Frank J. Polozola , U.S. District Judge
Printed name and title