Source: http://la.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190925_0001299.ELA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-06-03 01:11:13
Document Index: 222434297

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 841', '§ 3582', '§ 3582', '§ 3582', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 3582']

SECTION "E"(5)
Before the Court is a Motion for Reduction of Sentence and Appointment of Counsel filed by Stephen Ellis.[1] Baptiste asks the Court “Since United States vs. Davis is retroactive will that help me with my case? (924C). [I]f so appoint me with a federal lawyer and resentce [sic] me or release me because I’ve already completed 50% of the 117 months.”[2] For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
Ellis is currently serving a 117 month prison sentence for convictions of (1) being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); (2) possessing firearms in furtherance of and during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); and (3) knowingly and intentionally possessing with the intent to distribute a Schedule I Drug Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C).[3] On August 9, 2019, Ellis filed the instant motion for appointment of counsel to assist him in seeking a reduction of his prison sentence.
The Court construes Ellis’s motion for reduction of sentence as a motion for modification of his term of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). There is “no constitutional rights to appointed counsel” in a § 3582(c) proceeding.[4] Instead, the Court has discretion to appoint counsel to financially eligible individuals seeking relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) in exceptional cases where the “interest of justice warrant(s) such appointment.”[5]
On June 24, 2019, in United States v. Davis, the United States Supreme Court held 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) to be unconstitutionally vague.[6] Ellis argues this ruling may affect his sentence because he was convicted in part under 18 U.S.C. § 924.[7] Ellis, however, was not convicted under the subsection of § 924 the Supreme Court held unconstitutional. Ellis was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) and (c)(1)(A), and the Supreme Court held only 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) to be unconstitutional. It did not pass on 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) or (c)(1)(A). As a result, Davis has no bearing on Ellis’s conviction or sentence. Accordingly, the interests of justice do not require Ellis to receive court appointed counsel for seeking relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
IT IS ORDERED that Ellis’s motion[8] is DENIED.
[1] R. Doc. 61.