Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cr-00161/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cr-00161-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Quentel Reed
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff, 

v. 

QUENTEL REED, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 12-cr-00161-YGR-1 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 35 

Presently before the Court is defendant Quentel Reed’s “omnibus motion” for a sentencing 

reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). (Dkt. No. 35.) Petitioner apparently seeks the same 

relief he requested in connection with an earlier motion for sentencing reduction (Dkt. No. 32), 

which the Court denied on December 4, 2015 (Dkt. No. 34). As before, he argues that his 

sentence should be reduced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), citing amendment 7821 to United 

States Sentencing Guidelines §§ 2D1.1, 2D1.11, and pointing to Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 

476 (2011) (holding that when a defendant’s sentence is set aside on appeal, the district court at 

resentencing may consider evidence of post-sentencing rehabilitation). Thus, the Court construes 

the instant motion as one for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. 

Rule 60 allows for relief “from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” in any of the 

following circumstances: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could 

not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 

59(b); 

 1

 Amendment 782 lowered the recommended sentences for many drug trafficking offenses. 

See United States v. Navarro, 800 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Case 4:12-cr-00161-YGR Document 37 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 

(4) the judgment is void; 

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is 

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or 

applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 

(6) any other reason that justifies relief. 

See United States v. Okafor, 550 F. App’x 414, 415 (9th Cir. 2013) (reviewing a district court’s 

denial of a motion to reconsider an earlier sentencing reduction under the Rule 60 framework). 

Here, the defendant largely raises the same issues earlier adjudicated, but points to 

additional legal authority which predated the earlier order and which does not, in any event, call 

for a contrary result. See, e.g., Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (holding a 

particular sentencing reduction applied retroactively to defendants who committed an offense prior 

to the act’s effective date but who were sentenced thereafter). Accordingly, having failed to 

establish any grounds for relief, the defendant’s motion is DENIED. Although the Court lacks 

authority to reduce the defendant’s sentence, the Court commends the defendant for his successful 

completion of courses during his term of imprisonment. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 35. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 22, 2016 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:12-cr-00161-YGR Document 37 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 2