Opinion
Case No: 2:2003cr844-20 (KSH)
03-08-2012
United States of America v. Jamar Hurd
Louise Arkel, AFPD Defendant's Attorney
Date of Original Judgment: 05/23/2007
Date of Previous Amended Judgment: 10/08/2008
(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any)
Louise Arkel, AFPD
Defendant's Attorney
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
Upon motion of x the defendant [] the Director of the Bureau of Prisons [] 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 policy statement set forth at USSG § IB 1.10 and 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:
[] DENIED. X GRANTED and the defendant's previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in the last judgment issued) of 140 months is reduced to 120 months .
(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)
Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated 10/08/2008 shall remain in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Effective Date: ____________
(if different from order date)
____________
Judge of signature
KATHARINE S? HAYDEN, U.S.D.J.
Printed name and title
This page contains information that should not be filed in court unless under seal.
(Not for Public Disclosure)
DEFENDANT: Jamar Hurd
CASE NUMBER: 2:2003cr844
DISTRICT:
I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)
Previous Total Offense Level: 29
Criminal History Category: V
Previous Guideline Range: 140 to 175 months
Amended Total Offense Level: 27
Criminal History Category: V
Amended Guideline Range: 120 to 150 months II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO THE AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE X 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 substantial assistance departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the amended guideline range.
[] The reduced sentence is above the amended guideline range.