Opinion
11-20269
11-05-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CURTIS WILLIAMS, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION (ECF NO. 48)
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant Curtis Williams filed a request for a sentence reduction.
Williams has not stated the basis for his request, other than an unspecified “change in the law.” The court previously denied a more specific motion for a reduction in sentence, based upon Amendments 782 and 788 to the Sentencing Guidelines and the First Step Act. (ECF No. 47, dated March 16, 2023).
Ordinarily, a district court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The statute provides limited exceptions for defendants who demonstrate “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances and for those who have been “sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (policy statement). Williams has not explained why he believes he is entitled to a reduction in sentence, and the court is unable to fill in the blanks. See McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir. 1997) (“It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to . . . put flesh on its bones.”).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Williams's request for a sentence reduction (ECF No. 48) is DENIED.