U.S. v. Darling

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. KENJI LEQUIENT DARLING, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division

Date published: Jul 25, 2008

1:05-CR-13-SPM (N.D. Fla. Jul. 25, 2008)

Opinion

1:05-CR-13-SPM.

July 25, 2008

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE

STEPHAN MICKLE, District Judge

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to reduce sentence pursuant to the retroactive crack cocaine amendment (Amendments 706 and 711) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (doc. 91), and for appointment of counsel (doc. 88). The Government has filed a memo in opposition (doc. 92). Review of the record in this case reveals that the Defendant, Kenji Lequient Darling, is entitled to a sentence reduction based on the application of Amendment 706.

Darling was sentenced in 2007 to a term of 160 months. Darling's guideline range at the time of sentencing was mandatory life imprisonment, based on a total offense level of 33, a criminal history category of VI, and his prior drug convictions. Independent of the prior convictions, Darling's original guideline range would have been 235 to 295 months. Darling then received a downward departure because of a substantial assistance motion that was filed by the Government prior to his sentencing. This substantial assistance motion resulted in a sentence that was 40% lower than the midpoint of what would have been Darling's original sentencing guideline range.

Because the previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to Darling at the time of sentencing as a result of the substantial assistance departure, the reduced sentence is comparably less than the amended guideline range. Under the recent retroactive amendment, Darling's new guideline range is 188 to 235 months, based on a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of VI. Therefore, as authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), Darling's new sentence is 127 months. This new sentence is a 40% reduction from the midpoint of the amended guideline range.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence (doc. 91) is hereby granted. Seeing that Defendant has received the relief that he has requested, and that attorney John Broling has filed a notice of appearance for Defendant, the Motion to Appoint Counsel (doc. 88) is hereby denied.

DONE AND ORDERED.