Free Order Reducing Sentence re Crack Cocaine Offense - 18:3582 - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cr-00261-AHN Document 88 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 1 of 1
%AO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction
" '*"
UNITED STATES DISTR1(§1`§i%J§T
\,,z;¤ Ln.
District of Comiectiihrhk lm A IU,
United States ofAmerica 3 P Sl UIBTRECI
V' LiQ?.iiEFGill· L¤="i=’l
M in Smith ) Case No: 3:03cr261(AHN)
as ) USM Ne; 15299-014
Date of Previous Judgment: April 5, 2005 ) Robert Sullivan ________
(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) ) Defendant’s Attorney
Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
Upon motion of I the defendant lj the Director of the Bureau of Prisons lj the court under 18 U.S.C.
§ 35 82(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:
EI DENIED. I GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as rertecred in
the last judgment issued) of 120 months is reduced to 99 months .
I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)
Previous Offense Level: 29 Amended Offense Level: 27 _
Criminal History Category: III Criminal History Category: III __
Previous Guideline Range: 108 to 135 months Amended Guideline Range: 87 to 108 months
II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE
I The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.
tj The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time
of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the
amended guideline range.
lj O1l`1€1‘(explair1)Z
III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The defendant also asks the court to "impose a sentence that is less than provided for by the 2—level Guideline reduction
contemplated by Amendments 706 and 713." To the extent that § 3582 or any other authority permits the court to
reduce the defendant’s sentence more than the two levels contemplated by Amendments 706 and 713, the court, after
considering all relevant factors, declines to do so.
Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated April 5, 2005 shall remain in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED. ___
Order Date: July 24 2008 ,8, Alan H- Nevas. SUSDJ
.Iudge’S sEIaturc _
Effwivc Dare ____________ Atari H. Nevas, US. Drerrrer Judge
(if different from order date) Prjmed name; and tmc
it r 1