Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100330_0000601.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-05-28 03:40:19
Document Index: 235641147

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3582', '§ 3582', '§ 994', '§ 3582', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 2']

KAREEM HAMILTON, DEFENDANT.
Kareem Hamilton is serving 292 month sentence which was imposed on this Court on March 24, 2006 (see Doc. 295). On April 9, 2008, Hamilton filed a motion for retroactive application of sentencing guidelines to crack cocaine offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (Doc. 655) and a motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 656). The Court appointed counsel to represent Hamilton, and counsel has now moved to withdraw on the basis that he can make no non-frivolous arguments in support of a reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (Doc. 745). See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Hamilton was given thirty (30) days in which to respond to the motion; as of this date Hamilton has filed no response.
Hamilton is not entitled to a reduction in his sentence because he cannot satisfy the first criterion of that statute; he was not "sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o)." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Amendments 706 and 711 amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) as of November 1, 2007, to lower by two points the base offense levels associated with various amounts of crack cocaine. The Sentencing Commission amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) intending to alter the disparity in sentences involving crack cocaine and sentences involving powder cocaine. Hamilton, however, was sentenced based on his base offense level set forth in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 ("Career Offender"), not his base offense level set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See Forman, 553 F.3d at 589-90.
The Court has confirmed the representations in counsel's motion to withdraw and agrees that Hamilton is not entitled to a reduction in sentence for the reasons just mentioned. It would serve no purpose to appoint further counsel for Hamilton on this issue.
The Court therefore GRANTS counsel's motion to withdraw (Doc. 745), and DISMISSES for lack of jurisdiction the motion for a sentencereduction (Doc. 655), and DENIES the motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 656).