From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Hunter

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Aug 6, 2015
CR 06-00316-017 VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015)

Opinion

          STEVEN G. KALAR, Federal Public Defender, GABRIELA BISCHOF, Assistant Federal Public Defender, San Francisco, CA, Counsel for Defendant.

          MELINDA L. HAAG, United States Attorney, J. DOUGLAS WILSON, Assistant United States Attorney, Northern District of California.


          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1(b) AND AMENDMENT 782

          VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties acting through their respective counsel, that:

         1. Defendant is making an unopposed motion for modification of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

         2. Defendant's original guideline calculation was as follows:

Total Offense Level: 31

Criminal History Category: VI

Guideline Range: 188 to 235 months

Mandatory Minimum: 120 months

3. Defendant was sentenced to 168 months imprisonment on August 25, 2008.

         4. According to the Bureau of Prisons, Defendant's current projected release date is May 30, 2020.

         5. Effective November 1, 2014, this Court may order a modification in defendant's sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1), and Amendment 782, to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual.

         6. Defendant's revised guideline calculation is as follows:

Total Offense Level: 29

Criminal History Category: VI

Guideline Range 151 to 188 months

Mandatory Minimum: 120 months

7. The parties have no reason to dispute the Sentence Reduction Investigation Report submitted to the Court by the Probation Office.

         8. Based upon the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate that the Court may enter an order reducing Defendant's total term of custody to 151 months, effective November 1, 2015.

         9. The parties further stipulate that all other aspects of the original judgment order including the length of term of supervised release, all conditions of supervision, fines, restitution, and special assessment remain as previously imposed.

         10. Defendant stipulates that he waives and does not request a hearing in this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 43, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

         11. Defendant waives his right to appeal the district court's sentence.

         12. Accordingly, the parties agree that an amended judgment in accordance with this stipulation may be entered by the Court in pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1), Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual. A Sentencing Reduction Investigation Report and a proposed amended judgment will be submitted to the Court.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

         [PROPOSED] ORDER

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Hunter

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Aug 6, 2015
CR 06-00316-017 VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Hunter

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. CRAIG HUNTER, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: Aug 6, 2015

Citations

CR 06-00316-017 VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015)