Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

J Case 1 :89—cr—OOO49-KAJ Document 610 Filed O2/06/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO. 89-49-3·J·R:R’ WET
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
)
IGNAZIO LENA, )
)
Defendant. )
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT’S OBJECT ION TO
DEF ENDANT’S REDUCTION OF SENTENCE
COMES NOW, the above named Defendant Ignazio Lena, hereinafter referred to as
"Defendant," by and through his undersigned counsel, and files his Response to the
Government’s Objections to Defendant’s Reduction of Sentence. It should be noted, that
the Government inadvertently forwarded his objections to counse1’s old office address
and the Government’s motion was obtained by undersigned coimsel on this date. In
response, the Defendant states the following:
I. RESENTENCING IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE `
The disparity of sentencing that occurred in this case is obvious. First, the two level
enhancement, based on the purity level of drugs analyzed in this case, was applied
unfairly to the Defendant. Second, the gun enhancement imposed is inconsistent with the
Third Circuit Court of Appea1’s decision issued in co-defendant Bellitti’s case as well as
the sentencing guidelines. To permit these enhancements to stand would be an injustice
for co-defendant Lena. The Government has failed to address the disparity of sentencing

F Case 1:89—cr—O0O49-KAJ Document 610 Filed O2/06/2006 Page 2 of 3
issue as to whether Lena now should have the benefit that was afforded to Bellitti upon
his resentencing.
II. JURISDICTION IS CORRECT CONSISTENT WITH TITLE 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 3582{CM2) AND RULE 60t§) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.
Contrary to the Government’s assertion, Telesford v. United States, 2004 WL 724959
(D.Del., Mar. 31, 2004) does not bar the Defendant from seeking sentencing relief
consistent with his Rule 60(b) motion.. Here, Defendant seeks relief from the Court’s
previous judgments denying his Section 2255 motions, which also had addressed
sentencing issues. Revisiting a cou1t’s prior rulings is permitted in this instance,
especially given the facts surrounding the ruling in co—defendant Bellitti’s case which
occurred post-Defendant’s writ of habeas corpus rulings. Moreover, consistent with
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) as indicated in the attached motion, the
Defendant’s sentence should be re-evaluated. Had the previous Court ruled correctly in
favor of Defendant’s section 2255 motions, the relief sought here would have been
unnecessary. Jurisdiction remains proper and consistency of sentencing is required to
avoid the disparity that currently exists.
III. THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE RESENTENCED CONSISTENT WITH
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN UNITED STATES V. BOOKER., 125
S. CT. 738 {2005).
Attached to Defendant’s response is a supplemental motion that had previously been
filed. This motion was not addressed by the Govermnent in its response and the
arguments presented are included in Defendant’s request for resentencing.
2

· Case 1:89—cr—O0O49-KAJ Document 610 Filed O2/06/2006 Page 3 of 3
IV. CONCLUSION
The Defendant requests that this Court vacate his sentence and/or grant such other
relief as the Defendant may be entitled to receive. Alternatively, consistent with United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the Defendant should be entitled to a new
sentencing hearing.
Respec?lly submitted,
R ert G. Levitt, Esq.
Colorado Reg. 24252
Counsel for Defendant
600 17m street
Suite 2800 South
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 377-9000
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I I·IEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent by first
class mail this 4°h day of February, 2006 to:
Richard Andrews, Esq.
Assistant United States Attorney
Office of the United States Attorney
1201 Market Street, Suite 1100
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2046
Robert G. Levitt, Esq.
3