Opinion
8:19-cr-12-CEH-CPT
09-26-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NOEL RODRIGUEZ
ORDER
CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Noel Rodriguez's pro se letter to the Court, which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of his sentence. Doc. 186. Defendant attaches the Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Eason, 953 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2020), which he states held that “the Hobbs Act is no longer a crime of violence” and may require the Court to reconsider his sentence. Id. at 1. Defendant asks the Court to appoint a federal public defender if a separate motion for resentencing is needed. Id.
The Government responds in opposition. Doc. 187. While acknowledging that Eason held that Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), does not qualify as a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines, USSG §4B1.2(a), and thus cannot serve as a predicate for the career offender sentencing enhancement, the Government asserts that Defendant's argument is meritless even if his motion were procedurally proper and he was able to overcome any retroactivity issues. Id. at 1.
Specifically, it argues that Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of Hobbs Act robbery and one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. Doc. 71. The Court subsequently sentenced him to 27 months of imprisonment on Count One and 84 months of imprisonment on Count Three, to run consecutive to the time imposed on Count One. Doc. 132. However, because the career offender sentencing enhancement was not applied to either count, the Government argues that Eason does not apply. Doc. 132, Doc. 133, Doc. 187 at 1-2.
Upon review of the record and sentencing documents, the Government's response is accurate. The career offender enhancement was not applied to Defendant at sentencing, and his argument is therefore meritless. Defendant's request for reconsideration of his sentence (or appointment of counsel) (Doc. 186) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.