Summary
finding that the defendant was not entitled to a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 742 because Amendment 742 took effect more than a year after the defendant was sentenced and was not made retroactive
Summary of this case from United States v. WilliamsOpinion
Case No. 07-CR-20103.
August 24, 2011
OPINION
This case is before the court for ruling on the pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence (#25) filed by Defendant, Keith Harris. Defendant's Motion (#25) is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2007, Defendant was charged by indictment with the offense of knowingly possessing a firearm after having been previously convicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(1). On December 22, 2008, Defendant pled guilty to this offense pursuant to a written plea agreement (#16). On April 3, 2009, Defendant was sentenced to a term of 96 months in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to be followed by a 3 year term of supervised release.
ANALYSIS
On August 19, 2011, Defendant filed a pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence (#25). Defendant asked this court to hold a re-sentencing hearing and reduce his sentence based upon Amendment 742 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines which eliminated the "recency" points assessed by U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). Defendant is not entitled to the relief requested. Amendment 742 became effective on November 1, 2010, more than a year after Defendant was sentenced, and was not made retroactive. See United States v. Adams, 640 F.3d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 2011); Tolen v. United States, 2011 WL 37845, at *6 (N.D. Ill. 2011). Accordingly, this court does not have the authority to modify Defendant's sentence. See Abril-Amador v. United States, 2011 WL 2181310, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 2011).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant's pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence (#25) is DENIED.