IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 01 CR 1115-3

)

LEONEL DURAN, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

As this Court has earlier explained in its brief February 9, 2017 memorandum order (the 

"Order"), the odd interaction of some fortuitous circumstances -- fortuitous in the negative 

sense -- compelled this Court to end its unbroken string of well over three decades of handling 

both those branches of federal jurisprudence by eliminating the criminal side of its calendar 

(Order at 1). One particularly unfortunate instance of the consequences of that change was that 

this Court was totally unaware that Leonel Duran ("Duran") had "filed a pro se motion in early 

January 2015 for the appointment of counsel to represent him in an effort to obtain a sentence 

reduction pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782" (id. at 2) and that the "motion 

was granted by the appointment of a member of this District Court's federal defender program on 

August 31, 2015" (id.).

It was not until January 31, 2017 that this Court learned of those much earlier 2015 

developments when the appointed counsel filed a "status report" and included this Court's name 

in the caption of that filing, so that a copy of the report was then delivered to this Court's 

chambers. Although the appointed counsel stated in that report that she "has nothing to add at 

this time," this Court promptly ordered "that an Assistant United States Attorney should be 
assigned to the case and, after reviewing the criminal file and the relevant caselaw, should file a 

response to Duran's motion on or before March 16, 2017, with paper copies of that response 

being delivered to Duran's appointed counsel and to this Court's chambers" (Order at 2). With 

the government's response now having been timely filed, this memorandum opinion and order 

immediately addresses the Duran motion and the United States' response.

On the face of it, the United States' response appears compelling. In brief it urges that 

because Duran's ultimate sentence imposed by this Court post-Booker reduced Duran's custodial 

term to 300 months' imprisonment, while his newly calculated Guideline range under 

Amendment 782 was between 324 and 405 months of imprisonment (based on a retroactively 

reduced base level of 34, a new total adjusted offense level of 37 and Duran's criminal history 

category of V), 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) bars this Court from reducing Duran's term of 

imprisonment any further. That bar is confirmed by the decision in Dillon v. United States, 569 

U.S. 817, 821-22 (2010). 

Although the thorough and well-presented government response appears both persuasive 

and unexceptionable, this Court will defer its final ruling on Duran's motion until his appointed 

counsel has an opportunity to consider that response and speak to the issue. Accordingly Duran's 

counsel is granted until March 29 to weigh in on the matter (with a paper copy of any filing on 

any Duran's behalf to be delivered to this Court's chambers, as called for by LR 5.2(f)), at which 

point this Court will issue its definitive ruling.

__________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Date: March 15, 2017 Senior United States District Judge

- 2 -